On Friday, 26 of September 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > 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. OK -- 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
