On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:27 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > This is the 4th revision of the patch.
> > > + * struct pm_noirq_ops - device PM callbacks executed with interrupts disabled
> > > + *
> > > + * The following callbacks included in 'struct pm_noirq_ops' are executed with
> > > + * the nonboot CPUs switched off and with interrupts disabled on the only
> > > + * functional CPU.  They also are executed with the PM core list of devices
> > > + * locked, so they must NOT unregister any devices.
> > > + *
> > > + * @suspend_noirq: Complete the operations of ->suspend() by carrying out any
> > > + *	actions required for suspending the device that need interrupts to be
> > > + *	disabled
> > IMHO, no need to add _noirq in both struct and struct members.
> > pm_noirq->suspend_noirq does not look good...
>
> There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore.

I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate.

quoted text
> BTW. I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the discussion on that
> thread yet, been busy with other things, I'll try to go back to it today
> or tomorrow.

OK

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/