David Brownell wrote:
Yeah thus we don't have an ability to allocate SPI messages on stack as
you do, that's what votes for your approach. Yours is thus a bit faster,
though I suspect that this method is a possible *danger* for really
high-speed devices with data bursts on the SPI bus like WiFi adapters:
stack's gonna suffer from large amounts of data allocated.
No, you're still thinking about a purely synchronous programming model;
which we had agreed ages ago was not required.
Ah yes. But wait... I've got an important question here.
For instance, let's take your MTD driver. You're allocating a message
structure on stack and passing it then down to spi->master->transfer
function.
The benefit you're talking about is that you don't have to use
heavyweight memory allocation. But... the transfer is basically async so
spi->master->transfer will need to copy your message structure to its
own-allocated structure so some memory copying will occur as this might
be an async transfer (and therefore the stack-allocated message may be
freed at some point when it's yet used!)
So your model implies concealed double message allocation/copying,
doesn't it?
And if I'm wrong, can you please explain me this?
Vitaly
-
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/
[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]