On Wednesday 01 July 2009 11:23:38 Lin Ming wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 16:56 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Hi Lin, > > > > thanks for adding me. > > This is not "that" sever, but IMO this one should also be submitted > > to 2.6.30 stable kernels as it is a riskless revert of a patch > > fixing a regression. > > > > On Wednesday 01 July 2009 04:29:51 Lin Ming wrote: > > > Revert "ACPICA: Remove obsolete acpi_os_validate_address interface" > > > > > > This reverts commit f9ca058430333c9a24c5ca926aa445125f88df18. > > > > > > The quick fix of bug 13620 would be to revert the change. > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13620 > > > > > > Also, see the commit df92e695998e1bc6e426a840eb86d6d1ee87e2a5 > > > "ACPI: track opregion names to avoid driver resource conflicts." > > > > > > But there are problems we need to address: > > > > > > 1. We need to enhance the mechanism of avoiding driver resource > > > conflicts > > > to base a "resource" on Field definitions instead of Operation Region > > > definitions. > > Good idea, this could avoid some false positive detected region conflicts. > > > > > > 2. For dynamic region, we need an interface to call when an operation > > > region (field) is deleted, > > > in order to delete it from the resource list. > > > > > > 3. If the same region is created and added to resource list over and > > > over again, > > > this is have the potential to be a memory leak by growing the list > > > every time > > Region or field or both? > > Currently, it's region. > If we change the mechanism to base on "Field", as item 1 above, then > it's field. > > > How can this happen, can you show a little ASL snippet or explain this a bit > > more detailed, please. I do not fully understand what is meant in 3. > > For example, the dynamic region which defined in a method, > > Method(m000) > { > OperationRegion (xxxx, SystemMemory, 0xFED11000, 0xFF) > ..... > } > > If method m000 is called multiple times, then the region xxxx will be > inserted to the resource list again and again. > > So we need item 2 above to delete the dynamic region from the resource > list. Ouch, I thought OperationRegions must be declared in global namespace. I agree, we have a memleak and this looks rather sever. Grmpfl, that makes the resource conflict checking even more ugly. Thanks for spotting this, Thomas -- 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
