On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:07 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> 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!).
Right... But the failing sta lookup has to happen anyway, so it really
adds practically no cost in the peer case, and a singe lookup in the
"non-peer already exists" case.
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
