From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Minimally intrusive patch to remove some overdesign in ACPI code. Based
on hch rant.
The only purpose of functions in question is to dynamically allocate one
global spinlock -- acpi_gbl_gpe_lock. Instead, create it in .bss.
It's tempting to shoot acpi_
Len
> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [patch 10/13] Remove acpi_os_create_lock(),
acpi_os_delete_lock()
>
>
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Minimally intrusive patch to remove some overdesign in ACPI code.
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:09:14 -0700
"Moore, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will not always be the case, in fact we are about to expand the use
> of the spinlock interfaces.
Sure, but this function is absolutely crackers. All it does is to
dynamically allocate and initialise a spinlock.
OTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [patch 10/13] Remove acpi_os_create_lock(),
> acpi_os_delete_lock()
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:09:14 -0700
> "Moore, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This will not always be the case, in fact we are about to expand the
use
>
-)
thanks,
-Len
>-Original Message-
>From: Moore, Robert
>Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:35 PM
>To: Andrew Morton
>Cc: Brown, Len; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [patch 10/13] Remove acpi_os_create_lock(),
>acpi_os_delete_lock()
>
>
