On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 13:32 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote: > I believe the point was to allow the handler to execute methods, even > from other threads and to not block the interpreter for an unknown > amount of time. > Could you elaborate on this more, I'm not following you.. What do you mean by "handler"? The name "interpreter lock" to me sort of indicates that it's protecting the interpreter. So I'm guessing the point was to stop multiple threads from being inside the interpreter at once. If that's the case it doesn't make sense to release the mutex while your inside the interpreter. That means another thread could then enter and the protection doesn't hold. It looked like most if the interpreter functions allocate their own memory, then use that memory without sharing it with other instances of the interpreter. So it's all contained into the one thread. You also have the mutexes embedded in the AML , which seem to indicate the AML is thread safe (might be a big assumption tho). Daniel -- 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
