On Sunday 10 June 2007 04:57:12 am Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > 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. - 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
