On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:34:49 -0600 Ross Zwisler <zwisler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + > > +/** > > + * traceeval_iterator_put - release a given iterator > > + * @iter: The iterartor to release > > + * > > + * Frees the resources of an @iter that was created by > > + * traceeval_iterator_get(). > > + */ > > +void traceeval_iterator_put(struct traceeval_iterator *iter) > > +{ > > + if (!iter) > > + return; > > + > > + free(iter->entries); > > I think we also need to free **sort and *direction, which are both allocated > in traceeval_iterator_sort(). Probably need to update the function comment > as well to include allocs from that function. Yes, thanks. > > > + free(iter); > > +} > <> > > +/** > > + * traceeval_iterator_sort - sort the entries that an iterator will return > > + * @iter: The iterator to specify the sort order of the entries > > + * @sort_field: The name of the key or value to sort with. > > + * @level: The level of sorting (0 for first order, 1 for second, ...) > > + * @ascending: If the sort should go forward or backward. > > + * > > + * The iterator has a list of entries to produce with traceeval_iterator_next(). > > + * This function specifies what the order of the output of that function will > > + * be. Note, whenever this function is called, it resets the @iter so that > > + * the traceveal_iterator_next() will start from the beginning again. > > + * > > + * In other words, be very careful to ever call this function in a middle > > + * of a loop that is using traceeval_iterator_next(), otherwise you may end > > + * up in an infinite loop! > > + * > > + * The @level specifies the level of sorting. That is, for @level = 0, > > + * it will decide the main sorting of the @iter. For @level = 1, it will > > + * be the tie breaker for two entries that are equal for the @level = 0 > > + * sort. @level = 2, will be the tie breaker for @level = 1, and so on. > > + * > > + * Note, if traceeval_iterator_next() is called, and there's a missing @level, > > + * it will fail. That is, if this function is called once with @level = 0 and > > + * againg with @level = 2, but never with @level = 1, the call to > > + * traceeval_iterator_next() will fail. > > + * > > + * If this function is called multiple times with the same @level, then the > > + * last call will define the what that @level will do. > > + * > > + * The @ascending will determine if "smaller" items go first if true, and > > + * "larger" items go first if false. > > + * > > + * Return 0 on success and -1 on failure. > > + */ > > +int traceeval_iterator_sort(struct traceeval_iterator *iter, const char *sort_field, > > + int level, bool ascending) > > +{ > > + bool *direction = iter->direction; > > + struct traceeval_type **sort = iter->sort; > > + struct traceeval_type *type; > > + > > + type = find_sort_type(iter->teval, sort_field); > > + if (!type) > > + return -1; > > + > > + /* pointer and dynamic types must have a cmp function */ > > + switch (type->type) { > > + case TRACEEVAL_TYPE_POINTER: > > + case TRACEEVAL_TYPE_DYNAMIC: > > + if (!type->cmp) > > + return -1; > > + break; > > + default: > > + break; > > + } > > + > > nit: It'd probably help with readability to have: > > int num_levels = level + 1; > > and use that instead of (level + 1). Sure, I'm just so use to the (level + 1), that it comes natural for me now. But I do agree, from a readability standpoint, having a "num_levels" would be better. > > > + if ((level + 1) > iter->nr_sort) { > > + sort = realloc(sort, sizeof(*sort) * (level + 1)); > > + if (!sort) > > + return -1; > > + > > + iter->sort = sort; > > + > > + direction = realloc(direction, sizeof(*direction) * (level + 1)); > > + if (!direction) > > + return -1; > > + > > + iter->direction = direction; > > + > > + /* Make sure the newly allocated contain NULL */ > > + for (int i = iter->nr_sort; i < (level + 1); i++) > > + sort[i] = NULL; > > + > > + iter->nr_sort = level + 1; > > + } > > + > > + sort[level] = type; > > + direction[level] = ascending; > > + iter->needs_sort = true; > > + return 0; > > +} > <> > > +static int sort_iter(struct traceeval_iterator *iter) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + > > + /* Make sure all levels are filled */ > > + for (i = 0; i < iter->nr_sort; i++) { > > + if (!iter->sort[i]) > > + return -1; > > + } > > + > > + qsort_r(iter->entries, iter->nr_entries, sizeof(*iter->entries), > > + iter_cmp, iter); > > + > > + iter->needs_sort = false; > > + iter->next = 0; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * traceeval_iterator_next - retrieve the next entry from an iterator > > + * @iter: The iterator to retrieve the next entry from > > + * @keys: The returned keys of the next entry (if exists) > > + * > > + * This returns the keys for the next entry in the traceeval being > > + * iterated over by @iter. If there are no more entries, 0 is returned > > + * and @keys are untouched. > > + * > > + * Returns 1 if another entry is returned, or 0 if not (or negative on error) > > + */ > > +int traceeval_iterator_next(struct traceeval_iterator *iter, > > + const union traceeval_data **keys) > > +{ > > + struct entry *entry; > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (iter->needs_sort) { > > + ret = sort_iter(iter); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > + iter->next = 0; > > This is already done in sort_iter(). Yep, I know. But I love redundancy ;-) I actually added it to both at the same time because I didn't know which one was better to have it. I compromised, and just said "OK do it in both!" -- Steve > > > + } > > + > > + if (iter->next >= iter->nr_entries) > > + return 0; > > + > > + entry = iter->entries[iter->next++]; > > + *keys = entry->keys; > > + return 1; > > +} > > -- > > 2.40.1 > >
![]() |