On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:31:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Do I think correctly it's based on top of the run-time PM patches?
It's logically distinct, but doesn't really do anything useful without
them.
> > +static acpi_status acpi_pci_pme_notify(void *context)
> > +{
> > + struct work_struct *work = kzalloc(sizeof(struct work_struct),
> > + GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> kzalloc(sizeof(*work), ...) would save you a few characters. :-)
Heh. True.
> > +
> > + if (work) {
> > + INIT_WORK(work, context);
> > + schedule_work(work);
>
> Hmm. Not sure if putting that into pm_wq wouldn't be better.
Would probably work.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
