Thanks, Robert! So for future changes like this (if any) I suppose they would be preferred to be directly against acpica? What mailing list would they go to? Jan >>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> 09.05.08 22:04 >>> Jan, I've integrated your const and macro changes into the acpica source. Thanks for your help, Bob >-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:43 PM >To: trenn@xxxxxxx >Cc: Moore, Robert; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] acpi: use __init* on everythingintables/tbfadt.c > >>>> Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> 05/01/08 8:55 PM >>> >>Andrew, IMO you can drop this and the const cleanups from -mm tree. >> >>Jan, nearly all code in: >>drivers/acpi/*/*.[hc] >>is part of ACPICA. This currently still is (may change) an Intel >>internal repository which gets synced to several OS implementations, >>also Linux. __init does not exist there (yet). > >I'm fairly sure I saw __init used elsewhere in ACPI CA code, so I >didn't think adding mode stuff like this would cause problems (as >long as the changes were correct of course). > >>Also the const changes may be a bit of a pain -> this is what Robert >>meant with as long as it won't end in a chain of const cleanups :) > >Of course they're a pain now. But see below. > >>The whole code gets style cleaned up through Lindent and manually to >>half way fit to the Linux kernel style when things get merged. >> >>Currently Robert has to readjust this to ACPICA coding style by hand >>and merge it into the internal Intel repository. Len has to pick it up >>somewhat later and merge it back to the Linux kernel... >> >>Therefore I expect for cleanup patches (this one is on the edge, but I >>could understand Intel if they hold it off) the best is to wait until >>Intel publishs ACPICA as CVS or whatever repository on their >>lesswatts.org site. > >That's brave to say - I've been seeing this kind of significant cleanup >potential about seven years ago (when I wasn't dealing with ACPI CA >on Linux, yet), so I have to admit I find it a little odd (at least) to >defer >this even further - the code should have been written const-correct >and __init-ready (iirc Windows also has a concept of init code) from >the beginning in my opinion. ANyway, the purpose of both patches >was to try and get this cleanup started in Linux or at least turn >attention to this on the ACPI CA side. > >Jan -- 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
