On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If the remaining unreserved space will not accomodate
>>>> the
>>>> + * filenames, adjust name_width to use all available
>>>> remaining space.
>>>> + * Otherwise, assign any extra space to graph_width.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (name_width> width - reserved_character_count -
>>>> graph_width) {
>>>> + name_width = width - reserved_character_count -
>>>> graph_width;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + graph_width = width - reserved_character_count -
>>>> name_width;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If stat-graph-width was specified, limit graph_width to
>>>> its value.
>>>> + */
>>>> if (options->stat_graph_width&&
>>>> - graph_width> options->stat_graph_width)
>>>> + graph_width> options->stat_graph_width)
>>>> {
>>>> graph_width = options->stat_graph_width;
>>>> - if (name_width> width - number_width - 6 - graph_width)
>>>> - name_width = width - number_width - 6 -
>>>> graph_width;
>>>> - else
>>>> - graph_width = width - number_width - 6 -
>>>> name_width;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Here, the order of the two tests
>>> (1) if (options->stat_graph_width&& graph_width>
>>> options->stat_graph_width)
>>>
>>> (2) if (name_width> width - number_width - 6 - graph_width)
>>> is reversed. This is not OK, because this means that
>>> options->stat_graph_width will be used unconditionally, while
>>> before it was subject to limiting by total width.
>>
>>
>> If options->stat_graph_width is specified, it should always limit the
>> value of graph_width, correct? Since (1) is the last test, it can only
>> decrease the value of graph_width, which would already be limited by
>> the total width.
>
> Right, but the way the tests are ordered now, we could end up decreasing
> name_width first (after (2)) and then graph_width (after (1)), actually
> using less than full width.
Ahh, I didn't think about that.
I just reverted the order back to the original.
>> I just noticed that name_width isn't being limited to stat_name_width,
>> if it is specified. I'll add a check for that.
>
> Sounds good.
FYI, in patch v3, I reverted the check for stat_graph_width as previously
mentioned, and I ended up not adding a check for stat_name_width.
It remains the case that in certain scenarios, name_width & graph_width
could be set to values greater than stat_name_width & stat_graph_width.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html