On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:02:44PM -0800, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 23:13 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > - int valid; > > - int valid_single_stream; > > + u8 valid; > > + u8 valid_single_stream; > > You can use bool instead, and that would give the same size saving while > being even more descriptive. I think using bool could be safer, as the > compiler would be able to detect some misuses and the values. > > But I could get even more saving by using bool with the field width: > > bool valid:1; > bool valid_single_stream:1; > > That would place both variables into one byte. It may be ineffective > for speed, but it's more effective for storage. > > In my configuration, I get following sizes: > > original (int): 2792138 > your patch (u8): 2790186 > bool: 2790186 > bool (1 bit): 2789218 Or use flags, and use BIT(1), BIT(2), etc for #defines for each stream mode. Would save even more. Luis -- 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
