On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:38 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Even better :)
>
> add/remove: 0/12 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 5532/-6296 (-764)
> function old new delta
> ieee80211_invoke_rx_handlers 724 6256 +5532
> ieee80211_rx_handlers 52 - -52
> ieee80211_rx_h_mgmt 116 - -116
> ieee80211_rx_h_remove_qos_control 148 - -148
> ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan 168 - -168
> ieee80211_rx_h_data 192 - -192
> ieee80211_rx_h_ctrl 288 - -288
> ieee80211_rx_h_ps_poll 440 - -440
> ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt 508 - -508
> ieee80211_rx_h_check 588 - -588
> ieee80211_rx_h_amsdu 872 - -872
> ieee80211_rx_h_sta_process 920 - -920
> ieee80211_rx_h_defragment 2004 - -2004
>
>
> All three patches together give:
>
> add/remove: 1/23 grow/shrink: 1/2 up/down: 8924/-10404 (-1480)
> function old new delta
> ieee80211_invoke_rx_handlers 724 6256 +5532
> invoke_tx_handlers - 3392 +3392
> ieee80211_tx_handlers 48 - -48
> ieee80211_rx_handlers 52 - -52
> ieee80211_tx_h_sequence 116 - -116
> ieee80211_rx_h_mgmt 116 - -116
> ieee80211_get_buffered_bc 620 484 -136
> ieee80211_master_start_xmit 1152 1008 -144
> ieee80211_rx_h_remove_qos_control 148 - -148
> ieee80211_tx_h_stats 168 - -168
> ieee80211_tx_h_encrypt 168 - -168
> ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan 168 - -168
> ieee80211_rx_h_data 192 - -192
> ieee80211_tx_h_select_key 256 - -256
> ieee80211_tx_h_calculate_duration 276 - -276
> ieee80211_rx_h_ctrl 288 - -288
> ieee80211_tx_h_rate_ctrl 344 - -344
> ieee80211_tx_h_check_assoc 344 - -344
> ieee80211_rx_h_ps_poll 440 - -440
> ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt 508 - -508
> ieee80211_rx_h_check 588 - -588
> ieee80211_tx_h_fragment 640 - -640
> ieee80211_tx_h_misc 724 - -724
> ieee80211_tx_h_ps_buf 744 - -744
> ieee80211_rx_h_amsdu 872 - -872
> ieee80211_rx_h_sta_process 920 - -920
> ieee80211_rx_h_defragment 2004 - -2004
>
>
> ---
> net/mac80211/rx.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> --- everything.orig/net/mac80211/rx.c 2008-06-19 14:30:13.000000000 +0200
> +++ everything/net/mac80211/rx.c 2008-06-19 14:36:38.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1732,66 +1732,57 @@ static void ieee80211_rx_cooked_monitor(
> dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> }
>
> -typedef ieee80211_rx_result (*ieee80211_rx_handler)(struct ieee80211_rx_data *);
> -static ieee80211_rx_handler ieee80211_rx_handlers[] =
> -{
> - ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_check,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_sta_process,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_defragment,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_ps_poll,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_michael_mic_verify,
> - /* this must be after decryption - so header is counted in MPDU mic
> - * must be before pae and data, so QOS_DATA format frames
> - * are not passed to user space by these functions
> - */
> - ieee80211_rx_h_remove_qos_control,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_amsdu,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_data,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_ctrl,
> - ieee80211_rx_h_mgmt,
> - NULL
> -};
>
> static void ieee80211_invoke_rx_handlers(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx,
> struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> - ieee80211_rx_handler *handler;
> ieee80211_rx_result res = RX_DROP_MONITOR;
>
> rx->skb = skb;
> rx->sdata = sdata;
> rx->dev = sdata->dev;
>
> - for (handler = ieee80211_rx_handlers; *handler != NULL; handler++) {
> - res = (*handler)(rx);
> #define CALL_RXH(rxh) if ((res = rxh(rx)) != RX_CONTINUE) goto rxh_done;
Would it really be so bad to just open-code them rather than the macro approach?
res = ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan(rx);
if (res != RX_CONTINUE) goto rxh_done;
res = ieee80211_rx_h_check(rx);
if (res != RX_CONTINUE) goto rxh_done;
...
Similar comment for the transmit handler patch. Either way, the approach looks good,
and the size reduction is nice.
Cheers,
Harvey
--
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
