Hi Oliver,
> > > Why do you care that much about the size of struct urb? There are a few
> > > hundred of these structures at most at any given time. I think we gain
> > > more
> > > in memory usage if we make using URBs easier, shrinking drivers' code.
> >
> > Firstly, we certainly are reasonin
Am Samstag, 9. Juni 2007 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> There's something you said in this thread which I would like to address.
>
> > > So, you add 24 bytes to all URBs, which are... not very thin, to be sure.
> > > Last time I counted they were 152 bytes apiece. Still, a 15% increase.
> > > I know you'
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:49:43 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a patch to reduce padding:
So, sizeofs are:
original: 160
with anchor: 184
with the patch:176
So, this does not win us back the space used for the anchor. We are
still 16 bytes dow
Am Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> So, you add 24 bytes to all URBs, which are... not very thin, to be sure.
> Last time I counted they were 152 bytes apiece. Still, a 15% increase.
> I know you're a good algorithmist, are you sure you don't have any ideas?
>
> The naive approach is
Am Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> So, you add 24 bytes to all URBs, which are... not very thin, to be sure.
> Last time I counted they were 152 bytes apiece. Still, a 15% increase.
> I know you're a good algorithmist, are you sure you don't have any ideas?
>
> The naive approach is
Am Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007 06:18 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> Hi, Oliver:
>
> I thought that the anchor would be very useful for the usblp cleanup,
> so I looked at the patch. Short summary is, I like the general idea,
> but not the cost of implementation.
>
> > @@ -1161,6 +1176,8 @@ struct urb
> >
Hi, Oliver:
I thought that the anchor would be very useful for the usblp cleanup,
so I looked at the patch. Short summary is, I like the general idea,
but not the cost of implementation.
> @@ -1161,6 +1176,8 @@ struct urb
> /* public: documented fields in the urb that can be used by drivers
