2012/4/21 Németh Márton <[email protected]>:
> diff --git a/main.cpp b/main.cpp
> index 0e57ee1..67db2eb 100644
> --- a/main.cpp
> +++ b/main.cpp
> @@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ void report(int time, int iterations, char *file)
> one_measurement(time);
> report_show_tunables();
> finish_report_output();
> + clear_tuning();
> }
> /* and wrap up */
> learn_parameters(50, 0);
> @@ -415,6 +416,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> learn_parameters(500, 0);
> save_parameters("saved_parameters.powertop");
> end_pci_access();
> + clear_tuning();
> reset_display();
>
> clear_all_devices();
These two chunks don't apply here. Did you create the patch against
currend HEAD commit 1dfdb80d? But look fine, when applying manually.
> diff --git a/tuning/tuning.cpp b/tuning/tuning.cpp
> index a0c3ffa..6a359ae 100644
> --- a/tuning/tuning.cpp
> +++ b/tuning/tuning.cpp
> @@ -312,3 +312,15 @@ void report_show_tunables(void)
> fprintf(reportout.csv_report,"\n");
> }
> }
> +
> +void clear_tuning()
> +{
> + while (!all_tunables.empty()) {
> + delete all_tunables.back();
> + all_tunables.pop_back();
> + }
> + while (!all_untunables.empty()) {
> + delete all_untunables.back();
> + all_untunables.pop_back();
> + }
> +}
I'd prefer a for loop like in commit 1dfdb80d. Easier to read and
should be faster than poping and always check for empty().
Greetings,
Tom
_______________________________________________
Power mailing list
[email protected]
https://bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power
