Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179]:47297 "EHLO mail-qy0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966016Ab0B1CwX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:52:23 -0500 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so768496qyk.5 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:52:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B89520D.1000209@lwfinger.net> References: <1267289803-6795-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <4B89520D.1000209@lwfinger.net> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:52:22 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: decrease size of ath9k.ko From: Ming Lei To: Larry Finger Cc: lrodriguez@atheros.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, stable@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2010/2/28 Larry Finger : > On 02/27/2010 10:56 AM, tom.leiming@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Ming Lei >> >> The patch defines the fields of 'valid_single_stream' and 'valid' in >> struct ath_rate_table as char type, so decrease the size of ath9k.ko >> about 2KB. >> >> old ath9k.ko >> [tom@tom-lei ath9k]$ size ath9k.ko >> ? ?text ? ?data ? ? bss ? ? dec ? ? hex filename >> ? 69344 ? ?3080 ? ? 168 ? 72592 ? 11b90 ath9k.ko >> >> new ath9k.ko >> [tom@tom-lei ath9k]$ size ath9k.ko >> ? ?text ? ?data ? ? bss ? ? dec ? ? hex filename >> ? 67304 ? ?3080 ? ? 168 ? 70552 ? 11398 ath9k.ko >> >> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei >> --- >> ?drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.h | ? ?4 ++-- >> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.h >> index 4f6d6fd..389168a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.h >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.h >> @@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ struct ath_rate_table { >> ? ? ? int rate_cnt; >> ? ? ? int mcs_start; >> ? ? ? struct { >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? int valid; >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? int valid_single_stream; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? char valid; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? char valid_single_stream; >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? u8 phy; >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? u32 ratekbps; >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? u32 user_ratekbps; > > Why 'char' rather than 'u8'? To me, the latter implies a small integer, not > character data. Either 'char' or 'u8' is OK, since both has one-byte size, isn't it? Thanks, -- Lei Ming