[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803192151.59720.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:51:58 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ACPI lockdep warning on boot, 2.6.25-rc5
On Wednesday, 19 of March 2008, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 02:16:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > @@ -421,7 +423,9 @@
> > > else
> > > acpi_safe_halt();
> > >
> > > - local_irq_enable();
> > > + if (irqs_disabled())
> > > + local_irq_enable();
> > > +
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -530,7 +534,9 @@
> > > * skew otherwise.
> > > */
> > > sleep_ticks = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> > > - local_irq_enable();
> > > + if (irqs_disabled())
> > > + local_irq_enable();
> > > +
> > > break;
> > >
> > > case ACPI_STATE_C2:
> >
> > That's pretty ugly. Could the code be modified to have interrupt
> > consistent at this point?
> >
>
> Agreed that this is not very clean. The problem is that we cannot be sure
> about the interrupt state at this point as the low level idle handlers at
> this point can come from variety of different places like safe_halt, arch
> dependent pm_idle code (which is different for (32 and 64 bit at this point)
> and also pm_idle can be somewhere outside the kernel in some module as it is
> a function pointer.
Well, I'd add a comment that this is to make lockdep happy. Otherwise it looks
bizarre.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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