RE: [patch] acpi compile fix

Grover, Andrew (andrew.grover@intel.com)
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:41:12 -0800


> From: Dave Jones [mailto:davej@codemonkey.org.uk]
> I don't see how putting a spinlock_t cast in the code is any
> more portable between OS's than spinlock_t as a function parameter.

The code that calls osl.c does not know about spinlock_t. Either the
function's definition and declaration don't match, or the other code
needs to know what a spinlock_t is, doesn't it?

> > If the above guesses (I'd prefer not to look) are correct then
> > struct acpi_handle_t {
> > spinlock_t lock;
> > };
> >
> > would make a ton more sense.
>
> That would solve the portability argument in my eyes if that
> is indeed the case here. It's still ugly, but it at least
> kills the problem in a slightly more tasteful way.

I don't see the cast as being particularly onerous. It's just a cookie.
osl.c knows what it actually points to, the rest doesn't.

Regards -- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/