From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Wed Nov  7 03:05:08 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id DAA05077;
	Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:05:08 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from tasogare.imasy.or.jp (daemon@tasogare.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.5])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA05072
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:05:08 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (iwasaki.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.92])
	(authenticated as iwa with CRAM-MD5)
	by tasogare.imasy.or.jp (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6/tasogare/smtpfeed 1.14) with ESMTP/inet id fA6I56W80834;
	Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:05:06 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 03:05:00 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20011107.030500.126571005.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org, robert.moore@intel.com
Cc: andrew.grover@intel.com, guy.therien@intel.com,
        paul.s.diefenbaugh@intel.com
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <B9ECACBD6885D5119ADC00508B68C1EA2FDFD9@orsmsx107.jf.intel.com>
References: <B9ECACBD6885D5119ADC00508B68C1EA2FDFD9@orsmsx107.jf.intel.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+010328
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1446
Subject: [acpi-jp 1446] Re: ACPI CA Mutex patches
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org

Thnaks bob, I agree with you.
# And sorry, I misunderstood a bit about SyncLevel parameter of Mutex :)

> I believe that the problem stems from the fact that we are tracking the
> CurrentSyncLevel on a per-method basis, and not a per-thread basis.  In

Yes, I have the same conclusion.  How about ownership of the Mutex?
Currently it is on a per-method basis (a pointer to WalkState), but
this should be changed too I think (maybe thread or top level of
control method basis?).

Thanks
