On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > Related: consider making urb->interval and its neighbors > > be "u32" or maybe even "u16". > > Hmmm... maybe. It's not clear the space savings would matter much; I > doubt that terribly many URBs ever get allocated at the same time.
I don't follow. Space savings are more often an accumulation of small improvements than any single big thing. And allocating many at once vs the same number over time doesn't matter, either ... the same amount of memory would be saved. > And > while it's true that the values should never be negative, there's not > much incentive to change the type to unsigned. I'll just disagree. Code written so that it's not *possible* to have a class of errors is better than similar code which could misbehave. In this case, you agree "should never be negative", but evidently think there might be some benefit to letting those values become negative so that algorithms could execute with data outside of the intended and tested ranges ... really, I can't follow that logic. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
