[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Tomas M." <tmezzadra@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean Pihet <j-pihet@...com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Suspend/resume regressions on Lenovo S10-3
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > @@ -895,8 +895,9 @@ static int acpi_idle_enter_bm(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > if (unlikely(!pr))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -
> > if (acpi_idle_suspend) {
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > cpu_relax();
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
>
> May I say this is ugly? Why can't we track the status of interrupts
> properly here?
It's not just ugly; it's illogical. What reason could there possibly
be for disabling interrupts and then enabling them again without doing
anything in between?
Alan Stern
--
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