From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760773AbZBXWwi (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:52:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754492AbZBXWw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:52:29 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52927 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbZBXWw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:52:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:51:45 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , pm list , Len Brown , Jesse Barnes , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume In-Reply-To: <200902242342.07721.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902232239.05926.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902242342.07721.rjw@sisk.pl> 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, 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. 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. Linus