On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 16:49 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:43:26 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 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;
> > };
>
> My concern is about those "..." that we are allocating within the sta_info struct
> that we will never use for every non-peer station.
>
> While if we used the struct below (with its own hash table), we would allocate
> only the space needed for the stats.
>
> >
> > struct stats_entry {
> > struct hash/list/whatever;
> > struct stats stats;
> > };
> >
>
>
> no?
> Maybe I misunderstood your idea?
But I'm not saying that these are mutually exclusive, I'm saying both
should exist.
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
