Re: The anchor patch critique
Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Oliver, > > > Why do you care that much about the size of struct urb? There are a few > > > hundred of these structures at most at any given time. I think we gain more > > > in memory usage if we make using URBs easier, shrinking drivers' code. > > > > Firstly, we certainly are reasoning without data here. Your hunch that > > we'll win anything in driver code is not any better substantiated than > > Marcel is rewriting hci_usb. We'll learn from that. it is almost done. We are talking about half driver size and making it really clean and easy to understand. 1339 hci_usb.[ch] 638 btusb.c The ISOC handling is still broken, but I hope to fix that really soon. After that we can start adding remote wakeup support. This is currently not possible with the current hci_usb driver since it is broken. The USB anchors are working really good and reduce the complexity in drivers since we are going in the direction on one-shot URBs without having to track them. The anchors allow us nice to cleanup the in-fly URBs without worrying about it. However the complexity shrinkage only works in addition with the URB_FREE_BUFFER flag I posted some weeks ago. Regards Marcel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel