On Wednesday, 19 of March 2008, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 02:16:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > @@ -421,7 +423,9 @@
> > >  		else
> > >  			acpi_safe_halt();
> > >  
> > > -		local_irq_enable();
> > > +		if (irqs_disabled())
> > > +			local_irq_enable();
> > > +
> > >  		return;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > @@ -530,7 +534,9 @@
> > >  		 *       skew otherwise.
> > >  		 */
> > >  		sleep_ticks = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> > > -		local_irq_enable();
> > > +		if (irqs_disabled())
> > > +			local_irq_enable();
> > > +
> > >  		break;
> > >  
> > >  	case ACPI_STATE_C2:
> > 
> > That's pretty ugly. Could the code be modified to have interrupt
> > consistent at this point?
> > 
> 
> Agreed that this is not very clean. The problem is that we cannot be sure
> about the interrupt state at this point as the low level idle handlers at
> this point can come from variety of different places like safe_halt, arch
> dependent pm_idle code (which is different for (32 and 64 bit at this point)
> and also pm_idle can be somewhere outside the kernel in some module as it is
> a function pointer.

Well, I'd add a comment that this is to make lockdep happy.  Otherwise it looks
bizarre.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
unsubscribe notice
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/