Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753225AbZCKVzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:55:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753474AbZCKVzh (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:55:37 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:49817 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753900AbZCKVzg (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:55:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:53:04 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: pm list , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , "Eric W. Biederman" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Len Brown , Jesse Barnes , Frans Pop , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5) In-Reply-To: <200903112250.10572.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903112215.02445.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903112250.10572.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 36 On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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? I'm not worried about nested ones. > Or should __enable_irq() only fail with IRQ_SUSPENDED set for desc->depth == 1? At least it needs a WARN_ON() in that case. A very prominent one. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/