2003-01-08 19:22:31

by Andrew Grover

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: [ACPI] RE: kacpidpc needs to die

> From: Grover, Andrew
> > From: Pavel Machek [mailto:[email protected]]
> > For reasons discussed before [forking from timer is not
> safe, anyway],
> > kacpidpc needs to die. Andrew, are you going to kill it or
> should I do
> > it?
>
> I can kill it...let me just verify with you --
> acpi_os_queue_for_execution has a two block switch statement, just use
> the first block (the case that uses schedule_work) and delete
> the rest,
> yes?

Oops, and combine acpi_os_schedule_exec and acpi_os_queue_exec, so that
we call dpc->function() from the original thread. Anything else?

-- Andy



2003-01-08 20:50:09

by Pavel Machek

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [ACPI] RE: kacpidpc needs to die

Hi!

> > safe, anyway],
> > > kacpidpc needs to die. Andrew, are you going to kill it or
> > should I do
> > > it?
> >
> > I can kill it...let me just verify with you --
> > acpi_os_queue_for_execution has a two block switch statement, just use
> > the first block (the case that uses schedule_work) and delete
> > the rest,
> > yes?
>
> Oops, and combine acpi_os_schedule_exec and acpi_os_queue_exec, so that
> we call dpc->function() from the original thread. Anything else?

I don't see anything else, this looks okay.

--
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.