On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:38 +0800, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Zhao Yakui wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:05 +0800, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >> NAK
> > Will you please describe the detailed reason?
> >
> > In the bug 11917 the regression is related with the following commit:
> > >commit 27663c5855b10af9ec67bc7dfba001426ba21222
> > >Author: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Date: Fri Oct 10 02:22:59 2008 -0400
> > >ACPI: Change acpi_evaluate_integer to support 64-bit on 32-bit
> > kernels
> >
> > But IMO the main reason is that EC driver misuses the Linux-ACPI
> > utility interface.(acpi_evaluate_integer).
> Did you _read_ the interface specification?
> It explicitly states that if any function call does not succeed it will not
> change the data passed to it.
> So it is again only your not-so-humble opinion.
What do you mean "not-so-humble"?
> > It will be better to determine whether the return value of ACPI
> > object is effective according to the return status. In such case the
> > code still can work well even after the Linux-ACPI utility interface is
> > changed again.
> Code works fine until someone tries to optimize it...
I agree that your patch can work well. But it depends on the
internal realization of Linux-ACPI utility interface. If Linux-ACPI
utility interface is changed, maybe it will be broken. If so, why not to
determine whether the return value is effective based on the return
status of Linux-ACPI utility?
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
--
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
