quoted

20121114-04.patch:

quoted

- * dmextern
+ * dmdeferred
+acpi_status acpi_dm_parse_deferred_ops(union acpi_parse_object
+*root);
+/*
+ * dmextern
+ */
-acpi_status acpi_dm_is_resource_template(union acpi_parse_object
*op);
+acpi_status
+acpi_dm_is_resource_template(struct acpi_walk_state *walk_state,
+			     union acpi_parse_object *op);

<  			   acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function,
<  			   void **context);

quoted

  			   acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void *context);

<  			   acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void **context)

quoted

  			   acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void *context)

<  					    (void **)end_tag);

quoted

  					    end_tag);

10 lines are caused by lacking of acdisasm.h and 7 lines are caused by (void **)

fixes. The latter will be seen in the next acpica release which is not what I'm
worrying about.

quoted

I just care about the acdisasm.h, if it is included, my life can be easier and it

will not be a trouble for the developers currently using ACPICA in the
community.

But Len has told you very clearly not to include it.  This is not a Len's whim,
there's a reason for that.

Is the reason not known to you or don't you agree with it?

I agreed w/ what we've been discussing about and reworked then found this.
I just wonder whether we could think about it from a different perspective.
Now we have the directory-by-directory "exceptions" maintained in the release scripts:
 common/compiler/debugger/disassembler/interpreter/os_specific/tools.
I just wonder do we need to maintain the file-by-file "exceptions" for the release process.
It will be convenient if there's no such exceptions, then ACPICA can freely manage the files under the "white listed" directories.

Best regards
-Lv