linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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).