On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:26:31PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Monday 20 September 2004 1:01 pm, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:26:44PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Also, introducing recursion (depth does not seem to be limited here) is > > > not a good idea IMHO - better convert it into iteration to avoid stack > > > problems down teh road. > > Humm, I guess recursion should be fine and even though the code does not have > > an explicit limit, the ACPI namespace describing the Ejectable device will limit the > > number of recursible devices. And I believe this won;t be more than 3 to 4 level depth. > > Hence recursion is fine here. > > > > If you still strongly believe that recursion is not the right choice here, > > let me know and I will convert it to iteration. > > I'm also in favor of removing the recursion, if only because it > allows local analysis. I.e., a correctness argument based solely > on the code in the patch is much more useful than one that relies > on properties of an external and mostly unknown ACPI namespace. Okay, I am convinced, I will post an updated patch to address this soon. Again thanks for the feedback and more comments are welcome:) -Anil - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Mon Sep 20 16:45:36 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:30 EST