On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:32 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 14:51 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > If your concern is actually a performance bottleneck in acpi_get_name() > > you found in the code, you should report it to the ACPI CA team. > > I have tried my best to get you to understand the problems in bigger > picture your patch set can exacerbate. Looking to somebody else to fix > the problems doesn't help. It doesn't look like we can come to an > agreement here, we just have to agree to disagree. I am not asking someone to fix it. I tried my best to explain that acpi_get_name() does not lead any performance issue when it is called in the error paths of ACPI drivers, and why we have to call it to obtain an object path info for error analysis. If you still believe there is a performance issue in calling acpi_get_name() under this context, please help us understand where the performance bottleneck is in the code. (I hope you just concerned it because it has "acpi_" prefix...) I will then work on the issue with the ACPI CA team. Thanks, -Toshi > caio, > -- Shuah > -- 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
