From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@open-mesh.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
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 16:38:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130218153833.GB4162@open-mesh.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361201387.8555.32.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1987 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:29:47 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:46 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>
> > In my current implementation I created a "twin hash-table". It contains
> > statistics for *all* the stations (peer and non-peer).
> >
> > I think that instead of embedding this new struct (let's call it sta_stats) into
> > the sta_info one, it would be easier to let them be independent (this is why I
> > created the twin hash) and then create
> > a pointer from the sta_info to the related sta_stats.
>
> I don't really see value in that, it would only make the implementation
> less efficient, because either you follow another pointer (sta->stats)
> or you have to look in the other hash table. That's why I prefer
> embedding it, we have to do the station hash table lookup anyway.
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 think this is the usual space vs. time tread-off :).
However, since this struct is accessed on the critical path, it may be worth to
save time and go for the "embed" approach. Let's see what the other thinks about
it....
>
> > For the API I think we should create a new nl80211 command.
> > If we simply add a
> > flag to the normal "station dump" command, we would not have all the attributes
> > to print (keep in mind station dump prints attributes that are in sta_info and
> > that are not in sta_stats).
>
> station dump can just print all attributes that exist, some stations
> would have more/different attributes than other stations. But I don't
> really think it makes a big difference either way, reusing it would be
> fine if the default is to not include the stats-only entries.
yeah, the default behaviour should remain the same (print peer stations
only).
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-18 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-15 17:19 [RFC] design discussion: Collecting information for (non-peer) stations Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-18 14:30 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 14:33 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 14:46 ` Antonio Quartulli
2013-02-18 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 15:38 ` Antonio Quartulli [this message]
2013-02-18 15:43 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 15:49 ` Antonio Quartulli
2013-02-18 15:58 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 16:07 ` Antonio Quartulli
2013-02-18 16:51 ` Johannes Berg
2013-02-18 19:36 ` Mathias Kretschmer
2013-02-20 17:19 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-20 19:10 ` Thomas Pedersen
2013-02-21 17:19 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-19 9:32 ` Thomas Hühn
2013-02-20 17:49 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-20 18:04 ` Mathias Kretschmer
2013-02-22 10:07 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2013-02-22 11:43 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-22 12:34 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2013-02-22 16:21 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-22 16:36 ` Antonio Quartulli
2013-02-22 17:03 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-22 17:42 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-02-25 10:28 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-03-08 14:13 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-03-11 12:01 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2013-03-25 14:43 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-02-22 17:42 ` Thomas Pedersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130218153833.GB4162@open-mesh.com \
--to=antonio@open-mesh.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek@open-mesh.com \
--cc=mathias.kretschmer@fokus.fraunhofer.de \
--cc=simon.wunderlich@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de \
--cc=thomas@cozybit.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).