[<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