> > wouldn't it be better for acpi_get_table() > > to return failure for acpi=off? > but acpi_disabled is a linux variable while acpi_get_table is ACPICA code. For the acpi_disabled case, acpi_get_table() will return AE_NOT_FOUND because acpi_gbl_root_table_list.count == 0, and leave the table pointer unchanged at NULL, yes? Looking at the other callers of acpi_get_table(), they all seem to be called when acpi is enabled and they know the table in question is going to be there. So I guess it is consistent for hest.c to know this too. But it looks like acpi_get_table() should fail gracefully, so why do we take a fault? -Len -- 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
