lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] perf kvm: fix bug resolving guest kernel syms
    Date
    On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:16:15 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
    > On 7/10/12 6:54 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:48:14 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
    >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/map.c b/tools/perf/util/map.c
    >>> index 641377e..da3411b 100644
    >>> --- a/tools/perf/util/map.c
    >>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/map.c
    >>> @@ -730,3 +730,27 @@ char *machine__mmap_name(struct machine *self, char *bf, size_t size)
    >>>
    >>> return bf;
    >>> }
    >>> +
    >>> +void machines__set_id_hdr_size(struct rb_root *self, u16 id_hdr_size)
    >>> +{
    >>> + struct rb_node *p;
    >>> + struct machine *machine;
    >>> +
    >>> + p = self->rb_node;
    >>> + while (p != NULL) {
    >>> + machine = rb_entry(p, struct machine, rb_node);
    >>> + machine->id_hdr_size = id_hdr_size;
    >>> + p = rb_next(p);
    >>> + }
    >>> +
    >>
    >> Looks like white-space damaged. :(
    >
    > bleah, something on my dev server converted tabs to spaces. Will fix.
    >
    >>
    >> The loop itself looks fine, or you might use this form:
    >>
    >> for (p = rb_first(self); p; p = rb_next(p))
    >
    > Doesn't work - I still see machines not updated.
    >>
    >>
    >> Is there a something like rb_for_each_entry() ?
    >
    > Didn't see one.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> + p = self->rb_node;
    >>> + if (p)
    >>> + p = rb_prev(p);
    >>> + while (p != NULL) {
    >>> + machine = rb_entry(p, struct machine, rb_node);
    >>> + machine->id_hdr_size = id_hdr_size;
    >>> + p = rb_prev(p);
    >>> + }
    >>> +
    >>
    >> I don't see why this second loop is necessary?
    >
    > To get the left half of the tree I believe. First loop walks the root
    > and all of the leaves to the right; this loop walks all of the leaves
    > to the left.
    >

    Oh, I overlooked the initial setting. So you divided tree-traversal to
    left and right part. It seems very odd to me. AFAIK a traversal from
    rb_first through rb_next shouldn't miss any node in the tree.

    Thanks,
    Namhyung


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-11 05:01    [W:0.027 / U:30.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site