From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757199AbXFLSlp (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:41:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756431AbXFLSlh (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:41:37 -0400 Received: from server001.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.130.9]:43664 "EHLO server001.webpack.hosteurope.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756335AbXFLSlg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:41:36 -0400 From: Andi Drebes To: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] drivers/acpi: sizeof/sizeof array size calculations replaced with ARRAY_SIZE Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:41:05 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Len Brown , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200705261239.27485.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <20070610105712.GA4695@ucw.cz> <200706101544.35463.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200706101544.35463.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706122041.06252.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;lists-receive@programmierforen.de;1181673696;e080f81a; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org First off: sorry for my late answer. > I agree the ACPI CA is a nuisance. But in this case, we're making > a mountain out of a molehill. I suspect that if somebody spent the > 15 minutes to make the ARRAY_SIZE patch work in both the Linux ACPI CA > and the generic Intel one and license it appropriately, Len would > happily apply the patch. I hope I got everything right. Here's what I understood so far: The ACPI Subsystem in the kernel is derived from intel sources. I searched the web for information about that and finally found http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/downloads.htm Is that the right one? So what I would have to do in order to "make the ARRAY_SIZE patch work in both the Linux ACPI CA and the generic Intel one" is to modify those sources aswell, send a patch to Intel and another one back to the lkml. Is that right? Or am I totally wrong? Cheers, Andi