Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:22:36 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] perf config: Prepare all default configs |
| |
Em Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:44:38PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:55:18PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote: > > On 04/15/2016 01:42 AM, Taeung Song wrote: > > > On 04/14/2016 09:19 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Em Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:53:20PM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu: > > > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/config.c > > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > > > > > +#define MAX_CONFIGS 64
> > > > Do we have to add another arbitrary maximum? Where is it used?
> > > IMHO, it is my idea. If you want to avoid using this arbitrary maxinum, > > > I'd modify the code. > > > > > > MAX_CONFIGS is used in order to declare two-dimensional arrays > > > 'default_config_items'
> > As above, I used MAX_CONFIGS because of two-dimensinal arrays > > 'default_config_items'.
> > What do you think about it ?
> I also agree that we'd better to avoid the arbitrary maximum.
> > We don't need to add this arbitrary maximum ? > > or would you mind, if I look for other way about > > 'default_config_item' ? > > What about this?
Yeah, I guess this should work, no? At least this is how it is done elsewhere, see:
tools/perf/builtin-bench.c, 'struct collection' has a benchmarks array, that in turn is organized as Namhyung suggests.
Then you either use ARRAY_SIZE() somewhere to get the number of entries or use a sentinel, i.e. use NULL for the last entry.
- Arnaldo
> struct perf_config_item color_config_items[] = { > CONF_STR_VAR("top", "red, default"), > CONF_STR_VAR("medium", "green, default"), > ... > }; > > struct perf_config_item tui_config_items[] = { > CONF_BOOL_VAR("report", true), > CONF_BOOL_VAR("annotate", true), > ... > }; > > struct perf_config_item *default_config_items[] = { > &color_config_items, > &tui_config_items, > ... > }; > > This way we can access the config array by using constant index > without the hard-coded maximum size IMHO. > > Thanks, > Namhyung
| |