Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Alan Jenkins wrote: >> Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >> >>> Hi Alan, >>> >>> Here are the patches. First is updated version of patch you've tried, >>> second is >>> even more aggressive disabling of GPEs (applies on top). >>> >>> Please check them. >>> >>> >> I tested them together and they worked, yay! >> >> That doesn't say anything about the second patch. My EC didn't generate >> enough spurious interrupts to trigger the STORM code. >> >> Would you welcome some nitpicks on the first patch at this time? I >> didn't see errors but I have some code-style queries. >> > Sure. Will be glad. My main query was about acpi_ec::t being a pointer. I thought that meant there would be lots of kmalloc / kfrees. But I see now it is allocated on-stack, i.e. it points to a local variable. Never mind. It is a bit clever though. I thought the original version was clearer - where acpi_ec::t wasn't a pointer. The other niggle was the spinlock. It would be nice to indicate by comment the resources it protects (acpi_ec::t and irq_count). Actually, if we're being clever, why not move irq_count into transaction_data? After all, it's only used within the transaction. It fits with both the lifecycle and the locking. Regards Alan -- 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
