From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 65/73] ACPICA: Fix for extraneous debug message for packages Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:22:34 -0400 Message-ID: <200804221922.34506.lenb@kernel.org> References: <1207974356-30687-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> <200804221523.22999.lenb@kernel.org> <9D39833986E69849A2A8E74C1078B6B3335943@orsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:59829 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751588AbYDVXWt (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:22:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9D39833986E69849A2A8E74C1078B6B3335943@orsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Moore, Robert wrote: > >would probably work just as well. Certainly acpi_native_uint was > overkill. > > I disagree. Often more efficient to use machine native word rather than > fooling around with a byte load/clear and store perhaps you mis-read my message. I went with "unsigned", which is 32-bits on both 32 and 64 bit x86. I shouldn't have mentioned that a byte was sufficient -- my point was simply that it is darn unlikely that we'd overflow a capacity of 2^8. There is zero chance we'd overflow 2^32; and thus no practical utility for 2^64 index capacitiy. I don't think that using a 32-bit index is a performance penalty on the hardware we care about. I also don't think that performance is important here. -Len