RE: [patch] acpi compile fix

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Dave Jones [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 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