From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi: Provide default GPE handler if the firmware doesn't Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:54:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20091111215404.GA24907@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1257806687-6608-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <200911112231.58027.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:53483 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759284AbZKKVyI (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:54:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911112231.58027.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:31:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Do I think correctly it's based on top of the run-time PM patches? It's logically distinct, but doesn't really do anything useful without them. > > +static acpi_status acpi_pci_pme_notify(void *context) > > +{ > > + struct work_struct *work = kzalloc(sizeof(struct work_struct), > > + GFP_ATOMIC); > > kzalloc(sizeof(*work), ...) would save you a few characters. :-) Heh. True. > > + > > + if (work) { > > + INIT_WORK(work, context); > > + schedule_work(work); > > Hmm. Not sure if putting that into pm_wq wouldn't be better. Would probably work. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org