Re: [PATCH 1/10] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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?

Or should __enable_irq() only fail with IRQ_SUSPENDED set for desc->depth == 1?

Rafael
--
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/