lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:50:52 -0800 From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> >> That would not work without wakelocks support, since the interrupt >> could occur after suspend_late which is the last chance for the driver >> to abort sleep. (The patch also breaks my current wakelock >> implementation since I use a suspend_late hook to abort sleep, but >> this should be easy to fix) > > Since this must be some very deep arch-specific thing anyway, just make > the dang thing be a "sysdev". At that point, its "suspend" function gets > called way later (at which point CPU interrupts are off). Wakelocks can use a sysdev, but I don't think a keyboard driver should be a sysdev. > >> > Hm, if that solves the problem then it would be nice to have a >> > new IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag for it, in addition to IRQF_TIMER: >> >> I think the right fix is for any interrupt that has IRQ_WAKEUP set to >> abort suspend if it is pending. I don't know if anyone relies on these >> interrupts being dropped now though. > > We could add something like that, but quite frankly, I'd hate to unless > there is some seriously common case. If it's just an oddball hacky special > case, it's easier to just say "hey, you have that crazy system device, you > handle it yourself". I don't think this is a oddball case. It is very common to connect keys or keypads to gpios. If these keys are wakeup keys, it is not OK to loose interrupts during the suspend phase. -- Arve Hjønnevåg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists