primitives without msgb

Holger Freyther holger at freyther.de
Mon Nov 27 08:55:54 UTC 2017


> On 20. Nov 2017, at 21:25, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Holger,
> 


> Yes, understood.  Still, those structures could probably simply be
> copied/wrapped into a msgb?   Like the struct that represents a parsed
> SMS?




> At that point you gain that you can queue them, work asynchronosly on
> them, and that e.g. a script language VM/interpreter/... could run in
> a completely different process.  I would love to see that, but of course
> if it's only possible by crating tons of new struct definitions, copying
> the data back and forth, etc. a shortcut like you proposed might be more
> realistic.



> In the end, you are doing the work, and it's your call.  I see some
> benefits of going the msgb way, but then I don't understand the
> implications in detail as you do, working on the given task.

So it will be neat to just send the msgb to another application but it
was easier to just put the struct on the stack and dispatch it. But as
you have pointed out we have the MNCC interface, SMS will not be a big
deal and the others are probably not very data intensive either. Let's
try using msgb and see how that will go.


holger


More information about the baseband-devel mailing list