On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:58:18 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.
Ah ok..Sorry, but I did not take this as an option :)
So, if I understood correctly, this means one table lookup for peer stations,
while two table lookups for non peers (first in sta_hash, which will fail). Right?
This would save one look up for each peer, since we have to do perform one of
them anyway (now I fully understood your previous statement!).
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Attachment:
pgpn14IAXGUAy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
