[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903112250.10572.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:09 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > + desc->status |= IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> > >
> > > This flag needs to be checked in __enable_irq().
> >
> > [I overlooked this comment, sorry.]
> >
> > Why does it?
>
> To catch abuse and callers of enable_irq() when this flag is set.
Hmm. This means you'd like to make enable_irq() fail if called with
IRQ_SUSPENDED set, correct?
What if someone calls irq_disable() and then irq_enable() between
suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs()? That would be pointless, but
surely not a bug? Should irq_disable() also fail if IRQ_SUSPENDED is set?
Or should __enable_irq() only fail with IRQ_SUSPENDED set for desc->depth == 1?
Rafael
--
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