"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com> wrote:
>
> However, we also have to execute control methods early in the boot
> sequence. down() would never block but it thinks it might, so we want to
> call down_trylock instead. in_atomic() seemed to be a good (?) way to
> tell whether we need to avoid down() or not.
>
> Thoughts on better ways to do this, perhaps? I guess I should at least
> add a comment above that line.
>
So really it's just the debug code which is being misleading? hm.
Couldn't you set some magical global ACPI flag:
acpi_super_early_init()
{
acpi_in_super_early_init = 1;
do_stuff();
acpi_in_super_early_init = 0;
}
And test that flag in acpi_os_wait_semaphore()?
It's a bit grubby, but so is the problem.
We do have this `system_running' flags in init/main.c which perhaps should be
fleshed out into a more fine-grained way of communicating the kernel's
start/run/stop state.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST