On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 12:41 +0900, bruno randolf wrote: > but isn't doing a memmove() quite inefficient? especially since we are dealing > with QoS packets that might be important. It's only ~20 bytes that are moved, should be within one cache line and we touch the packet data anyway. I don't think it's a problem. > another solution i thought of was signalling the mac80211 layer that we need > padding which could then just adjust it's headerlen. but then different > drivers might need different padding in different places (i don't know?). > what do you think of this approach? That could be worthwhile, though the headerlen calculation is called very very often and adding another branch into it could very well impact performance worse than doing the memmove. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
