Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interruptsduring suspend-resume (rev. 5)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  Why bother to distinguish between 
> "wake-up" interrupts and non-"wake-up" interrupts?
> 
> In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set
> for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()?

.. because some drivers might not actually shut down the hardware until 
they get to "suspend_late"? If even then, for that matter - a driver may 
simply not care, knowing that the hardware will be powered off, and will 
be re-initialized at resume.

The thinking that you have to shut your hardware down at "->suspend()" 
time is a _disease_. There are literally classes of hardware out there 
where that would be an outright _bug_, like for a PCI bridge device. For 
many devices, "suspend()" has to be the phase where you shut down the 
_external_ stuff (eg for a disk controller, it's when you'd flush and stop 
your disks), but the controller itself may well be alive until later.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/