RE: [PATCH 02/11] ACPICA: Back port of "ACPICA: Dispatcher: Tune interpreter lock around AcpiEvInitializeRegion()"

["Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com>]

Hi, Rafael

> From: rjwysocki@gmail.com [mailto:rjwysocki@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] ACPICA: Back port of "ACPICA: Dispatcher: Tune interpreter lock around
> AcpiEvInitializeRegion()"
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
> > ACPICA commit bc481e758e54f7644fd0b657119ca7763d8b6a9c
> >
> > This is a back port result of the following commit:
> >   Commit: 8633db6b027952449e155a316f4ae3a530bbe18f
> >   Subject: ACPICA: Dispatcher: Fix interpreter locking around acpi_ev_initialize_region()
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/bc481e75
> > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpica/dsinit.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/dsinit.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/dsinit.c
> > index 54d48b9..5de3f10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/dsinit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/dsinit.c
> > @@ -221,8 +221,8 @@
> >          */
> >         status =
> >             acpi_ns_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, start_node, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > -                                  0, acpi_ds_init_one_object, NULL, &info,
> > -                                  NULL);
> > +                                  ACPI_NS_WALK_NO_UNLOCK,
> > +                                  acpi_ds_init_one_object, NULL, &info, NULL);
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >                 ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "During WalkNamespace"));
> >         }
> > --
> 
> This isn't necessary IMO, the current code linux-next code looks like
> the change has been made in there already AFAICS (please double check,
> though).

The fix was in Linux, however, when it is back ported to ACPICA, Bob asked me to do this change.
Using ACPI_NS_WALK_NO_UNLOCK instead of meaningless 0.
So during this release cycle, this change is detected out as the only difference of the back ported commit.

> 
> I'm skipping this patch.

If this is skipped, it leaves us 14 lines divergences.
Hope we can have this kind of divergences eliminated.

Thanks and best regards
Lv