Re: [RFC] design discussion: Collecting information for (non-peer) stations

From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@open-mesh.com>
Cc: Simon Wunderlich <simon.wunderlich@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com>,
	Marek Lindner <marek@open-mesh.com>,
	Mathias Kretschmer <mathias.kretschmer@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] design discussion: Collecting information for (non-peer) stations
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:58:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1361203098.8555.35.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130218154906.GC4162@open-mesh.com>

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.

johannes