From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1162736AbcE3WV1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 18:21:27 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:36245 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1162060AbcE3WVW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 18:21:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] perf config: Reimplement perf_config() using
 perf_config_set__iter()
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>
References: <1464626651-1523-1-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
 <1464626651-1523-5-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
 <20160530193254.GC2563@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
From: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <574CBCD8.2000209@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 07:21:12 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160530193254.GC2563@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 05/31/2016 04:32 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:44:08AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>> +static int perf_config_set__iter(struct perf_config_set *set, config_fn_t fn, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	struct perf_config_section *section;
>> +	struct perf_config_item *item;
>> +	struct list_head *sections;
>> +	char key[BUFSIZ];
>> +
>> +	if (set == NULL)
>> +		return -1;
> <SNIP>
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +int perf_config(config_fn_t fn, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	if (perf_config_set__check() < 0)
>> +		return -1;
>> +	return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
>> +}
>
> "check" looks too vague, this is equivalent, no?
>
> int perf_config(config_fn_t, void *data)
> {
> 	if (config_set == NULL)
> 		config_set = perf_config_set__new();
> 	
> 	return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
> }
>

I understood it! I thought __check() function is needed for readability.
But I'll remove __check() because it would seem that the function isn't 
needed as you said.

Thanks,
Taeung