[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 08:48:57 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Adam Belay <ambx1@....rr.com>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Matthieu Castet <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/37] PNP resource_table cleanups, v2
On Sunday 04 May 2008 08:19:54 am Rene Herman wrote:
> On 04-05-08 16:14, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> > In trying to come up with problems I'm only finding a difference in an
> > added failure mode with respect to the static array if we run out of
> > memory at a bad time and this is quite unserious.
>
> I mean, this would be an added mode when just releasing and rbuilding teh
> list as opposed to teh reusing, it's not a diffeerence with respect to the
> .index setup.
>
> So, going to completely slash struct pnp_resource again? :) Would improve
> things...
It would be nice to get rid of struct pnp_resource, but then I
wouldn't have a place to keep the list pointer. But I think
it will disappear from most of the interfaces, e.g,. we can
get rid of pnp_get_pnp_resource(), etc.
Bjorn
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists