On Sunday 10 June 2007 04:57:12 am Pavel Machek wrote:
quoted text
> > > > > Any reason to not just replace ACPI_RSD_TABLE_SIZE with ARRAY_SIZE?
> > > 
> > > Probably because ARRAY_SIZE doesn't exist in ACPICA, which is
> > > where this code comes from...
> > > 
> > > When we change syntax in ACPICA files in Linux to make it more "beautiful",
> > > then it creates more work for me -- as forever on, that syntax difference
> > > must be manually compared to upstream ACPICA and Linux -- and that syntax
> > > difference causes upstream patches to no longer apply and require
> > > hand merging.
> > 
> > Or we could stop that ACPCICA crap ASAP.  The acpi code not only looks
> > like crap because of that but it's buggy as hell now.
> 
> +1.
> 
> Len, acpi subsystem is old enough to live by kernel standards, and
> important enough that it should look&feel like a kernel code. It also
> does not seem to change quickly, so merging patches should not be a
> big deal.

I agree the ACPI CA is a nuisance.  But in this case, we're making
a mountain out of a molehill.  I suspect that if somebody spent the
15 minutes to make the ARRAY_SIZE patch work in both the Linux ACPI CA
and the generic Intel one and license it appropriately, Len would
happily apply the patch.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/