On 19.11.2021 13:13, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 19.11.21 14:05, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.11.2021 07:56, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> >>> >>> Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory >>> regions of all the BARs and ROM, have them per BAR. >> Iirc Roger did indicate agreement with the spitting. May I nevertheless >> ask that for posterity you say a word here about the overhead, to make >> clear this was a conscious decision? > Sure, but could you please help me with that sentence to please your > eye? I mean that it was you seeing the overhead while I was not as > to implement the similar functionality as range sets do I still think we'll > duplicate range sets at the end of the day.
"Note that rangesets were chosen here despite there being only up to <N> separate ranges in each set (typically just 1)." Albeit that's then still lacking a justification for the choice. Ease of implementation? As to overhead - did you compare sizeof(struct rangeset) + N * sizeof(struct range) with just N * sizeof(unsigned long [2])? Jan
