Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction

Hi,

On 12/29/05, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well you could do that if you wanted, but 500 bytes of dynamic
> allocation is not a big issue. But it could be an optimization on top of
> this patch, indeed. The downside is that you then have to do 2
> allocations for each command, so whether it would be a win or not I
> don't know.

The allocation shouldn't make much difference but for the implicit
memset() smaller size is a win maybe?

                                Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
    • From: Zhu Yi <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][fat] use mpage_readpage when cluster size is page-alignment
• Next by Date: SLAB-related panic in 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 on ARM
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] ipw2200 stack reduction
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]