On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:16:44PM +0530, Varka Bhadram wrote: > Alex, > > On 07/28/2014 02:01 PM, Alexander Aring wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:38:56PM +0530, varkabhad...@gmail.com wrote: > >>From: Varka Bhadram <var...@cdac.in> > >> > >>This patch fix struct dgram_sock defination style. > >> > >>We are using bit fields in the struct dgram_sock but > >>every bit field of type 'unsigned int'. In this case > >>remaining bit fields are unused here. > >> > >>So by changing the style of declaration we can utilise > >>every bit field. > >> > >yes, this can save some bytes but it doesn't matter. Your patches > >doesn't change anything on the behaviour. > > saving some bytes on the kernel level is matters. We are saving 24bytes here. >
So I checked my kernel size. $ du -h /boot/vmlinuz-linux-lts 3.8M /boot/vmlinuz-linux-lts It's 3.8 MB which is 3 800 000 byte. The 24 bytes really doesn't matter and this is the size without modules. > With the less memory utilization we are achieving the same behavior ..? > Yes, but the linux kernel have other goals than to be the smallest operating system. We don't want to have a small stack implementation like contiki/tinyos/etc... We want a robust, stable implementation (what we don't have currently). The mac layer have lot of lacks and I am close to decide that we have a code freeze for mac802154 and I accept only bugfixes. Until the code freeze we should work on a rework of mac802154. - Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infragistics Professional Build stunning WinForms apps today! Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
