linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI Debug - for test, devel and possibly even for production kernels

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <84144f020705311157n6bede2c7ga234d70823d5869f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2007 21:57:10 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	trenn@...e.de
Cc:	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI Debug - for test, devel and possibly even for production kernels

On 5/31/07, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
> (This should efficiently be the same as the proposed big patch a year
> ago from Pekka Enberg, just a bit smaller and should make ACPICA and
> kernel/linux people happy:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=113699535303722&w=2)

No, you're keeping these obfuscating macros around:

+#define return_VOID                     return
+#define return_ACPI_STATUS(s)           return(s)
+#define return_VALUE(s)                 return(s)
+#define return_UINT8(s)                 return(s)

Making the ACPI code look like regular Linux kernel code (or even
regular C for that matter) was the whole point of my patch. Your patch
doesn't change that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/