[interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: interfacekit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 12:06:41 +0200 CEST
Adi Oanca <e2joseph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Also, never split the message into two port calls.
> No. I'm sorry, I will never agree with you on this one!
Can you elaborate a bit on why you don't do that?
Doing 2 port writes of 1024 should be slower than doing 1 write of
2048, no matter if you need to allocate the memory (or part of it)
first - and the problem should get worse the more parts the message
will have.
The only upside that I can see is on low memory situations, where you
cannot afford to allocate another 1024 bytes - but that seems very
unlikely.
Bye,
Axel.
- Follow-Ups:
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Adi Oanca
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Marcus Overhagen
- References:
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Pahtz
Other related posts:
- » [interfacekit] BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Adi Oanca
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Marcus Overhagen
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession(NG)
- From: Pahtz