From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760798AbXFJVo5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:44:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756689AbXFJVot (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:44:49 -0400 Received: from atlrel6.hp.com ([156.153.255.205]:57159 "EHLO atlrel6.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756435AbXFJVos (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:44:48 -0400 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] drivers/acpi: sizeof/sizeof array size calculations replaced with ARRAY_SIZE Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:44:35 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Len Brown , Andi Drebes , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200705261239.27485.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <20070531095603.GA24654@infradead.org> <20070610105712.GA4695@ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070610105712.GA4695@ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706101544.35463.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 10 June 2007 04:57:12 am Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Any reason to not just replace ACPI_RSD_TABLE_SIZE with ARRAY_SIZE? > > > > > > Probably because ARRAY_SIZE doesn't exist in ACPICA, which is > > > where this code comes from... > > > > > > When we change syntax in ACPICA files in Linux to make it more "beautiful", > > > then it creates more work for me -- as forever on, that syntax difference > > > must be manually compared to upstream ACPICA and Linux -- and that syntax > > > difference causes upstream patches to no longer apply and require > > > hand merging. > > > > Or we could stop that ACPCICA crap ASAP. The acpi code not only looks > > like crap because of that but it's buggy as hell now. > > +1. > > Len, acpi subsystem is old enough to live by kernel standards, and > important enough that it should look&feel like a kernel code. It also > does not seem to change quickly, so merging patches should not be a > big deal. I agree the ACPI CA is a nuisance. But in this case, we're making a mountain out of a molehill. I suspect that if somebody spent the 15 minutes to make the ARRAY_SIZE patch work in both the Linux ACPI CA and the generic Intel one and license it appropriately, Len would happily apply the patch.