From: Andi Drebes Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:41:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] drivers/acpi: sizeof/sizeof array size calculations Message-Id: <200706122041.06252.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> List-Id: 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Len Brown , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, 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 _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors