From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 26 11:06:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7DC44F; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:06:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425E68FC12; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id NAA29560; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:06:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1TcwW3-000LlF-41; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:06:19 +0200 Message-ID: <50B34D2A.7060604@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:06:18 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Farfeleder Subject: Re: ACPI panic References: <20121122081831.GA1483@mole.fafoe.narf.at> <50ADFD75.10709@FreeBSD.org> <50ADFFB2.1000108@FreeBSD.org> <50AE057D.8060808@FreeBSD.org> <20121125140008.GA1497@mole.fafoe.narf.at> <50B244A1.1040800@FreeBSD.org> <20121126091101.GA1469@mole.fafoe.narf.at> <50B33693.2060000@FreeBSD.org> <20121126093704.GB1469@mole.fafoe.narf.at> <50B34484.1090807@FreeBSD.org> <20121126104737.GC1469@mole.fafoe.narf.at> In-Reply-To: <20121126104737.GC1469@mole.fafoe.narf.at> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:06:22 -0000 on 26/11/2012 12:47 Stefan Farfeleder said the following: > BTW, I noticed the ACPI_SET_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE code is pointless, because the > DescriptorType is at offset 8 from the object start and gets immediately > overwritten by the next pointer. However I don't think it's a problem. Thank you. To make things more obvious could you please also examine the objects like this: x/9a ? -- Andriy Gapon