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

Reply via email to