From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760944AbZBXXHs (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:07:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753745AbZBXXHk (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:07:40 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:50665 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753038AbZBXXHk (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:07:40 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:07:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.29-rc5-tst; KDE/4.2.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , pm list , Len Brown , Jesse Barnes , Thomas Gleixner References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902242342.07721.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902250007.13069.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > The only safe way on x86 to shutdown a level triggered ioapic irq > > > outside of irq context is for the driver to program the hardware to > > > not generate an irq. > > > > Well, that changes things quite a bit, because it means we can't change the > > suspend-resume sequence in a way we thought we could without fixing all > > drivers first, but this is exactly what we'd like to avoid by changing the > > core. > > Calling "disable_irq()" is perfectly fine. > > What is not possible on that broken IO-APIC (among other things) is to > actually turn the interrupts off at the apic (ie the whole ->shutdown() > thing). But that's not what we even want to do. What we care about is > just disabling the interrupt from a drievr perspective. > > IOW, the patches I have seen are fine, and all the comments from Eric are > just confusion about what we want done. Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation, I got confused too. > WE DO NOT WANT TO TURN OFF THE IO-APIC. That may or may happen later, but > that's totally unrelated to this whole "suspend_device_irq()" thing. Yeah. Rafael