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
> >
|