[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMbhsRQ4DtMUs7HJz_t4reWaehjqEN=Xg2EaFKBgdPUO_ZtNCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:00:58 -0700
From: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Zhang <zhangwm@...vell.com>,
Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle: coupled: disable interrupts after entering
safe state
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Friday, August 23, 2013 12:45:10 PM Colin Cross wrote:
>> Calling cpuidle_enter_state is expected to return with interrupts
>> enabled, but interrupts must be disabled before starting the
>> ready loop synchronization stage. Call local_irq_disable after
>> each call to cpuidle_enter_state for the safe state.
>>
>> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
>
> I've queued up all thress for 3.12, but I wonder what stable versions they
> should be included into? All of them or just a subset?
The patches apply cleanly back to v3.6.
Joseph Lo had 2 minor comments on patch 2 (changing Tegra3 to Tegra20
in the commit message, replacing cpuidle_coupled_poke_pending with
cpuidle_coupled_poked in the comment above cpuidle_coupled_poked), do
you want to fix those up locally or should I resend the series?
--
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