On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 21:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Daniel, > > My decision on this patchkit is to reject it for now, because: > > - I'm worried about the long term maintenance impact of doing full > lockdep checking on AML controlled locks. Since I'm keeping ACPI > only temporarily I don't want to leave an potentially problematic > legacy. I think we have to allow some testing before there could be claim that there would be a major problem. > However what you can do is to ask Len again when he's back. Ultimately > it is his decision and he might decide that he can deal with AML lockdep > issues longer term. For instance these changes could go into linux-next until the 2.6.29 merge window .. Len should be back by then, and we should have a much better idea what kind of problems may exist, if any.. > Don't think it makes all that much sense to resubmit the completion > patch though. It's unrelated to the other patches anyways (not sure > why you mix them together) It's all related .. I removed the semaphores in ACPI which are actually mutexes in the first three patches. Your left with only semaphores that are locked.. Locked semaphores are really completions, so it's natural to convert them. I would have liked to change the name in ACPI from "semaphore" to "completion" , but you and Bob seemed to have some serious objections to it, w.r.t other operating systems that are using that ACPI code. 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
