From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keshavamurthy Anil S Subject: Re: [ACPI] PATCH-ACPI based CPU hotplug[1/6]-ACPI core enhancement support Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:44:32 -0700 Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040920134432.A16611@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20040920092520.A14208@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <200409201326.44946.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20040920120128.A15677@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <200409201426.31672.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Reply-To: Keshavamurthy Anil S Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409201426.31672.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>; from bjorn.helgaas@hp.com on Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:26:31PM -0600 To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Keshavamurthy Anil S , Dmitry Torokhov , acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Brown, Len" , LHNS list , Linux IA64 , Linux Kernel List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:26:31PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Monday 20 September 2004 1:01 pm, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:26:44PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Also, introducing recursion (depth does not seem to be limited here) is > > > not a good idea IMHO - better convert it into iteration to avoid stack > > > problems down teh road. > > Humm, I guess recursion should be fine and even though the code does not have > > an explicit limit, the ACPI namespace describing the Ejectable device will limit the > > number of recursible devices. And I believe this won;t be more than 3 to 4 level depth. > > Hence recursion is fine here. > > > > If you still strongly believe that recursion is not the right choice here, > > let me know and I will convert it to iteration. > > I'm also in favor of removing the recursion, if only because it > allows local analysis. I.e., a correctness argument based solely > on the code in the patch is much more useful than one that relies > on properties of an external and mostly unknown ACPI namespace. Okay, I am convinced, I will post an updated patch to address this soon. Again thanks for the feedback and more comments are welcome:) -Anil