[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902241449221.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:51:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > The only safe way on x86 to shutdown a level triggered ioapic irq
> > outside of irq context is for the driver to program the hardware to
> > not generate an irq.
>
> Well, that changes things quite a bit, because it means we can't change the
> suspend-resume sequence in a way we thought we could without fixing all
> drivers first, but this is exactly what we'd like to avoid by changing the
> core.
Calling "disable_irq()" is perfectly fine.
What is not possible on that broken IO-APIC (among other things) is to
actually turn the interrupts off at the apic (ie the whole ->shutdown()
thing). But that's not what we even want to do. What we care about is
just disabling the interrupt from a drievr perspective.
IOW, the patches I have seen are fine, and all the comments from Eric are
just confusion about what we want done.
WE DO NOT WANT TO TURN OFF THE IO-APIC. That may or may happen later, but
that's totally unrelated to this whole "suspend_device_irq()" thing.
Linus
--
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