From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754418AbZBCVUP (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:20:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751007AbZBCVT7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:19:59 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:32857 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750874AbZBCVT7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:19:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:18:48 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Ingo Molnar cc: "David S. Miller" , Thomas Gleixner , Jesse Barnes , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andreas Schwab , Len Brown Subject: Re: Reworking suspend-resume sequence (was: Re: PCI PM: Restore standard config registers of all devices early) In-Reply-To: <20090203210442.GA27804@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <200902031804.26752.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902031032.26771.jesse.barnes@intel.com> <20090203191334.GA2797@elte.hu> <20090203195304.GA31049@elte.hu> <20090203205727.GA4460@elte.hu> <20090203210442.GA27804@elte.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So i'd still like your tentative Signed-off-by for your patch - it's i think > not v2.6.29 material but if it stays problem free in testing we can try it > in v2.6.30. If it causes problem it will be clearly bisectable and clearly > revertable. Hmm. You can have my sign-off, because I certainly don't think the patch is _wrong_, but I also don't think it's necessarily really worth it unless somebody can show a real upside. As mentioned, I don't think this matters in practice for the whole MSI suspend issue - doing the "mask()" thing feels stupid and certainl;y wasn't what I expected us to do, but it really shouldn't matter from an actual behavioural standpoint at all. And if, as you say, we don't expect to have interrupts spread out across CPUs (and with the current io-apic they certainly don't happen - I don't know about x2apic) my performance arguments are bogus too. So the patch probably is the right thing to do, but the upsides are slim to nonexistent, and the downside you pointed out of somebody using that "handle_edge_irq()" thing with an interrupt that turns out to be level after all makes me worry a bit. But feel free to put it in some experimental branch with my sign-off. Linus