On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 16:38 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:29:47 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:46 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> >
> > > In my current implementation I created a "twin hash-table". It contains
> > > statistics for *all* the stations (peer and non-peer).
> > >
> > > I think that instead of embedding this new struct (let's call it sta_stats) into
> > > the sta_info one, it would be easier to let them be independent (this is why I
> > > created the twin hash) and then create
> > > a pointer from the sta_info to the related sta_stats.
> >
> > I don't really see value in that, it would only make the implementation
> > less efficient, because either you follow another pointer (sta->stats)
> > or you have to look in the other hash table. That's why I prefer
> > embedding it, we have to do the station hash table lookup anyway.
>
> I did not like this approach because the sta_info struct is so big that
> when we want to fill the stats substruct only we will waste a lot of bytes.
I don't understand your point.
struct sta_info {
...
struct stats stats;
};
struct stats_entry {
struct hash/list/whatever;
struct stats stats;
};
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
