Messages in this thread | | | From | "Grover, Andrew" <> | Subject | RE: [patch] acpi compile fix | Date | 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/
| |