[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902251724220.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:27:45 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"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, 25 Feb 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
> Do you plan to fix edge triggered wakeup interrupts? It still looks
> like edge triggered wakeup interrupts that occur between
> suspend_device_irqs and local_irq_disable will not cause a wakeup.
IF we ever see this as a real issue, we can either see it in the 
IRQ_PENDING flag, or we can mark such interrupts specially. So it would be 
solvable. That said, I haven't actually heard any real usage cases. Normal 
wakeup events are _not_ interrupts in the regular "device interrupt 
controller" sense.
So can you actually point to an explicit example of something where this 
is a real issue?
			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
 
