[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235681849.7388.22.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:57:29 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Thu, 2009-02-26 at 12:34 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> That is enough for drivers that use wakelocks to abort suspend (if I
> fix the wakelock code to not use a platform device as its last abort
> point). It is not enough if you don't have wakelocks, since the
> interrupt can occur after suspend_late has been called and the driver
> has no way to abort suspend.
>
I still don't quite see how you deal with the race anyway. Ie. Even
without Rafael patch, what if the interrupt occurs after your sysdev
suspend ?
In general, unless they are level sensitive, wakeup interrupts tend to
always be somewhat racy.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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