From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: move tables.c fully into .init.* Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:45:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <5059DD5A020000780009C523@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5059DD5A020000780009C523@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/09/2012 13:57, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 19.09.12 at 13:40, Keir Fraser wrote: >> On 19/09/2012 09:58, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >> >>> Of course, if you're only against the dynamic allocation, moving >>> the array elsewhere would be another option (but would require >>> making the symbol global, whereas here the symbol goes away >>> altogether from the symbol tables). >>> >>> Yet another option would be to do the dynamic allocation where >>> it was actually intended to be done, passing NULL here. The >>> resizing there isn't being made use of anyway (and wouldn't >>> work afaict), so we could as well do away with it and replace it >>> by the simple allocation needed here (or simply fix it, >>> considering that we might need it at some point). >> >> I'm not wild about any of the options really. Perhaps passing NULL would be >> best. Still, overall, I'm not *that* bothered. You can have my Ack for the >> original patch: >> Acked-by: Keir Fraser > > As you were not really happy with it, and as I (also already in > the past) wondered about when the broken re-allocation there > would hit us, I decided to produce a v2, fixing and using the > re-allocation mechanism instead. I like that more, yes. Thanks! > Jan >