From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264296AbTLIJyp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:54:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264288AbTLIJyn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:54:43 -0500 Received: from pix-525-pool.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:15861 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264296AbTLIJof (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:44:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:43:56 +0100 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Paul Menage Cc: arjanv@redhat.com, agrover@groveronline.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: ACPI global lock macros Message-ID: <20031209094356.GA19702@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <3FD59441.2000202@google.com> <1070962573.5223.2.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <3FD5990A.9020908@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD5990A.9020908@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:42:34AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > >maybe the odd thing is that it exists at all? > >(eg why does ACPI need to have it's own locking primitives...) > > Because the ACPI spec defines its own locking protocol for > synchronization between the OS and the BIOS. ... which can't be written based on linux locks ?