[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903021530200.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:32:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
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>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during
suspend-resume (rev. 4)
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
> > enable_irq() clears IRQ_SUSPENDED. This has already been discussed btw.
>
> I'm if I missed that discussion, but enable_irq cannot know who is
> calling it and therefore cannot know if IRQ_SUSPENDED should be
> cleared.
Sure it can.
If IRQ_SUSPENDED is not set, then clearing it is a no-op, so that's fine.
If IRQ_SUSPENDED _is_ set, then that means that we're after the
suspend_late() sequence and before the resume_early() sequence, and no
device driver is possibly called in between, so they'd sure better not be
doing anything that does an enable_irq().
IOW, we know who the caller is, simply because there can be no other valid
caller!
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