[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903112313.37628.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:13:36 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
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>,
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, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > I'm not worried about nested ones.
>
> Then you shouldn't be worried about IRQ_SUSPENDED at all, since that one
> increments the disabled depth count.
>
> So _all_ disable/enable_irq calls will by definition be nested inside
> IRQ_SUSPENDED.
Still, if there's an unbalanced irq_enable() between suspend_device_irqs()
and resume_device_irqs(), we'll not detect it immediately, but only in
resume_device_irqs(). It would be better if the unbalanced call failed in that
case IMHO.
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