From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264269AbTLIJng (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:43:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264281AbTLIJne (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:43:34 -0500 Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com ([216.239.45.4]:16887 "EHLO 216-239-45-4.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264269AbTLIJm6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:42:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD5990A.9020908@google.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 01:42:34 -0800 From: Paul Menage User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: arjanv@redhat.com CC: agrover@groveronline.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: ACPI global lock macros References: <3FD59441.2000202@google.com> <1070962573.5223.2.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> In-Reply-To: <1070962573.5223.2.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Paul