Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 26 of September 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
He refers to the ec->curr (former ec->t).
Hm, I'm not sure what the failing scenario in this case would be.
Last one was the thread of the stack is killed during transaction,
thus stack vanishes and interrupt goes over freed memory.
This isn't possible IMO. The thread is uninterruptible while waiting for the
transaction to finish (if I'm not mistaken).
Right, I already explained it to Yakui, this is why he only claims
"ugly" now.
That said, we can still embed 'curr' in 'struct acpi_ec' and do
'ec.curr = t' instead of 'ec->curr = &t' in acpi_ec_transaction_unlocked().
Now, if 'command' is embedded in 'curr', it will be sufficient to do
'if (curr.command)' instead of doing 'if (ec->curr)', wherever applicable.
No, I like current way more. Now it is not possible to use transaction
data if
acpi_ec_transaction is not on the stack.
--
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
