[Coco] os9/drivewire driver: success!

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:54 PM, William Astle <lost at l-w.ca> wrote:

> Aaron Wolfe wrote:

>> One question about combining SERREAD and SERCHECK:

>>

>> My original idea was that SERCHECK would return the number of bytes in

>> the server's buffer, and then SERREAD would ask for a flush of X

>> bytes, typically the number returned by SERCHECK.  The server would

>> then write out the # of bytes requested.  This was (in my head) a way

>> to improve performance for things like rzsz over the virtual serial

>> port.

>>

>> By combining them, I will be cutting the potential throughput in half

>> since there are two bytes for each data byte, and also taking a

>> penalty of having to ask for each byte individually (which is

>> admittedly how my current driver works, but it was supposed to be

>> better :)

>>

>> Are there outside factors that mitigate the losses in combining the

>> calls?  If there is some other reason it will be slow anyway, then I

>> agree it would make it simpler to combine them.

>> -Aaron

>

> Why not make the request include a maximum number of bytes to return.

> Then have the response include the number of bytes returned and those bytes.

>

> This would require tinkering the drivewire scheme so it could handle

> variable length return packets in some manner but it should provide the

> maximum theoretical efficiency.

>


This would be nice, but as it stands the dw calls require you to know
how many bytes are coming/going when you call them.. not sure if I'm
ready to touch anything in dw itself :)  maybe at some point though..
i agree this would be ideal.


> --

> Coco mailing list

> Coco at maltedmedia.com

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

>