Andrew, Thanks, you are absolutely correct. We have recently been driving this kind of thing back up into the ACPICA core by allowing the host to define types which are then compiled into ACPICA (ACPI_CPU_FLAGS for example) to simplify the ACPICA-to-host interfaces, and this is another OSL interface we should change to allow this. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Morton > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:24 PM > To: Moore, Robert > Cc: Brown, Len; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [patch 10/13] Remove acpi_os_create_lock(), > acpi_os_delete_lock() > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:09:14 -0700 > "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This will not always be the case, in fact we are about to expand the use > > of the spinlock interfaces. > > Sure, but this function is absolutely crackers. All it does is to > dynamically allocate and initialise a spinlock. But the storage for the > pointer-to-spinlock is the same as, or larger than the spinlock itself. > > This thing has to die - please kill it before it spreads. The spinlock > should be aggregated by value into the containing structure. Not by > reference. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
