RE: [patch 05/10] acpi: use __init* on everythingintables/tbfadt.c

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>]

Thanks, Robert! So for future changes like this (if any) I suppose they would
be preferred to be directly against acpica? What mailing list would they go to? Jan

>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> 09.05.08 22:04 >>>
Jan,

I've integrated your const and macro changes into the acpica source.

Thanks for your help,
Bob


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeulich@novell.com] 
>Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:43 PM
>To: trenn@suse.de 
>Cc: Moore, Robert; lenb@kernel.org; akpm@linux-foundation.org; linux-
>acpi@vger.kernel.org 
>Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] acpi: use __init* on
everythingintables/tbfadt.c
>
>>>> Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> 05/01/08 8:55 PM >>>
>>Andrew, IMO you can drop this and the const cleanups from -mm tree.
>>
>>Jan, nearly all code in:
>>drivers/acpi/*/*.[hc]
>>is part of ACPICA. This currently still is (may change) an Intel
>>internal repository which gets synced to several OS implementations,
>>also Linux. __init does not exist there (yet).
>
>I'm fairly sure I saw __init used elsewhere in ACPI CA code, so I
>didn't think adding mode stuff like this would cause problems (as
>long as the changes were correct of course).
>
>>Also the const changes may be a bit of a pain -> this is what Robert
>>meant with as long as it won't end in a chain of const cleanups :)
>
>Of course they're a pain now. But see below.
>
>>The whole code gets style cleaned up through Lindent and manually to
>>half way fit to the Linux kernel style when things get merged.
>>
>>Currently Robert has to readjust this to ACPICA coding style by hand
>>and merge it into the internal Intel repository. Len has to pick it up
>>somewhat later and merge it back to the Linux kernel...
>>
>>Therefore I expect for cleanup patches (this one is on the edge, but I
>>could understand Intel if they hold it off) the best is to wait until
>>Intel publishs ACPICA as CVS or whatever repository on their
>>lesswatts.org site.
>
>That's brave to say - I've been seeing this kind of significant cleanup
>potential about seven years ago (when I wasn't dealing with ACPI CA
>on Linux, yet), so I have to admit I find it a little odd (at least) to
>defer
>this even further - the code should have been written const-correct
>and __init-ready (iirc Windows also has a concept of init code) from
>the beginning in my opinion. ANyway, the purpose of both patches
>was to try and get this cleanup started in Linux or at least turn
>attention to this on the ACPI CA side.
>
>Jan