trace-cmd: remove dead code

PATCH Superseded Lai Jiangshan 2 participants 5 messages Mar 10, 2011 – Mar 14, 2011

lore

Share & tools

lore

Lai Jiangshan

author

2011-03-10 09:56 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/3 trace-cmd: remove dead code

filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

Signed-off-by Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>

---
 trace-read.c |   10 +---------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

trace-read.c +1 -9

index 0e9ced8..1cd9bd3 100644
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
 static int multi_inputs;
 static int max_file_size;
 
-static int filter_cpu = -1;
 static int *filter_cpus;
 static int nr_filter_cpus;

@@ -619,10 +618,6 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
 			else
 				record = NULL;
-
-		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
-			cpu = filter_cpu;
-			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
 		} else
 			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);

@@ -963,10 +958,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
 		case 0:
 			switch(option_index) {
 			case 0: /* cpu */
-				if (filter_cpu)
-					add_cpu(optarg);
-				else
-					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
+				add_cpu(optarg);
 				break;
 			case 1: /* events */
 				print_events = 1;

Signature · 1 line

1.7.4

Steven Rostedt

2011-03-10 14:53 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 1 line · Lai Jiangshan

filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple, and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.

-- Steve

Quoted 41 lines

Signed-off-by Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>

---
 trace-read.c |   10 +---------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

trace-read.c +1 -9

index 0e9ced8..1cd9bd3 100644
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
 static int multi_inputs;
 static int max_file_size;
 
-static int filter_cpu = -1;
 static int *filter_cpus;
 static int nr_filter_cpus;

@@ -619,10 +618,6 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
 			else
 				record = NULL;
-
-		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
-			cpu = filter_cpu;
-			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
 		} else
 			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);

@@ -963,10 +958,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
 		case 0:
 			switch(option_index) {
 			case 0: /* cpu */
-				if (filter_cpu)
-					add_cpu(optarg);
-				else
-					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
+				add_cpu(optarg);
 				break;
 			case 1: /* events */
 				print_events = 1;

Lai Jiangshan

author

2011-03-14 02:29 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · Steven Rostedt

Quoted 1 line · Lai Jiangshan
filter_cpu related code is totally dead.
I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple, and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.

I'm confused, filter_cpu is always -1, how the code can be reached?

Steven Rostedt

2011-03-14 13:28 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 4 lines · Lai Jiangshan

Quoted 3 lines · Steven Rostedt
Quoted 1 line · Lai Jiangshan
filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 6 lines
I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple, and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.
I'm confused, filter_cpu is always -1, how the code can be reached?

Ah, you're right. Because of a bug:

- if (filter_cpu)
+ if (filter_cpu >= 0)

		add_cpu(optarg);
	else
		filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);

Was what it was suppose to be.

-- Steve

Lai Jiangshan

author

2011-03-14 02:37 UTC #4 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/3 trace-cmd: remove dead code

In reply to Steven Rostedt

filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

Signed-off-by Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>

---
 trace-read.c |   13 ++++---------
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

trace-read.c +4 -9

index 0e9ced8..88b576f 100644
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
 static int multi_inputs;
 static int max_file_size;
 
-static int filter_cpu = -1;
 static int *filter_cpus;
 static int nr_filter_cpus;

@@ -601,7 +600,7 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 	do {
 		next = -1;
 		ts = 0;
-		if (filter_cpus) {
+		if (nr_filter_cpus > 1) {
 			unsigned long long last_stamp = 0;
 			struct record *precord;
 			int next_cpu = -1;

@@ -619,9 +618,8 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
 			else
 				record = NULL;
-
-		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
-			cpu = filter_cpu;
+               } else if (nr_filter_cpus == 1) {
+			cpu = filter_cpus[0];
 			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
 		} else
 			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);

@@ -963,10 +961,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
 		case 0:
 			switch(option_index) {
 			case 0: /* cpu */
-				if (filter_cpu)
-					add_cpu(optarg);
-				else
-					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
+				add_cpu(optarg);
 				break;
 			case 1: /* events */
 				print_events = 1;

Signature · 1 line

1.7.4