Hi again, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:33:58PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Am i allowed to make the RPC ugly if it reduces system load ? > > > There seems to be an inavoidable performance penalty with my naive > idea to allow an arbitrary reversible transformation from struct > to byte array. > In this case i have to copy the possibly fat payload buffer more often > than i would have to if i get it separately and without need for > conversion. > > Separate payload buffers would yield a bloated RPC definition and > C function prototype, i fear: > > routine device_transact_native( > device : device_t; > in function_code : unsigned int; > in in_ctrl : ^ array[] of unsigned char; > in in_data : ^ array[] of unsigned char; > out out_ctrl : ^ array[] of unsigned char; > out out_data : ^ array[] of unsigned char > ); Well, in view of my other mail, you might see that I actually consider this a step in the right direction... ;-) But it makes it even more obvious that a generic device_transact() is a bad idea. -antrik-
