Re: 2.5.66-bk12: acpi_power_off: sleeping function called from il legal context

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

"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.