Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:07:55 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> Cc: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: [acpi-jp 3117] RE: ACPI-CA 20040311 imported Message-ID: <20040330150718.T83533@root.org> In-Reply-To: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE0552D0666@orsmsx403.jf.intel.com> References: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE0552D0666@orsmsx403.jf.intel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Moore, Robert wrote: > There's nothing in the ACPI spec that precludes recursive methods. > However, I agree that it is a very scary thing to do. For this reason, > I have the iASL compiler issue a remark when it detects a recursive > method call. > > All AML interpreters that I know of implement nested and recursive > method calls without chewing up the kernel stack, i.e., a state is > allocated for each nested call and linked to the previous method state. Thanks for the info. I've disabled serialized methods by default now and left _OSI enabled by default. This matches the Linux approach. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040330150718.T83533>