[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903021533130.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:35:09 -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, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> If IRQ_SUSPENDED _is_ set, then that means that we're after the
> suspend_late() sequence and before the resume_early() sequence
Sorry, after the suspend, and before the resume.
We could be _in_ the suspend_late/resume_early sequence, but a driver that
were to try to play with interrupts at that stage would be broken. It
can't very well do a enable_irq(), because that would be a MAJOR BUG - it
would make the whole irq suspend thing pointless, since now interrupts
would start to happen exactly where they must not happen!
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