>diff -r ac486e270597 -r abd89292c539 drivers/acpi/osl.c
>--- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c Sat Mar 18 08:35:34 2006 -0500
>+++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c Thu Mar 30 10:59:57 2006 -0500
>@@ -634,6 +634,8 @@ static void acpi_os_execute_deferred(voi
> return_VOID;
> }
>
>+extern int acpi_in_suspend;
>+
> acpi_status
> acpi_os_queue_for_execution(u32 priority,
> acpi_osd_exec_callback function,
>void *context)
>@@ -643,6 +645,8 @@ acpi_os_queue_for_execution(u32 priority
> struct work_struct *task;
>
> ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("os_queue_for_execution");
>+ if (acpi_in_suspend) /* in case kacpid is causing
>the queue */
>+ return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_OK);
The request will be dropped silently , So, it sounds ugly.
At least, you need to put some warning here.
The long-term solution is to fix the invoker to NOT ask
kacpid to invoke AML methods during suspend-resume period.
>
> ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_EXEC,
> "Scheduling function [%p(%p)] for
>deferred execution.\n",
>diff -r ac486e270597 -r abd89292c539 drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
>--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c Sat Mar 18 08:35:34 2006 -0500
>+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c Thu Mar 30 10:59:57 2006 -0500
>@@ -19,6 +19,12 @@
> #include <acpi/acpi_drivers.h>
> #include "sleep.h"
>
>+/* for functions putting machine to sleep to know that we're
>+ suspending, so that they can careful about what AML methods they
>+ invoke (to avoid trying untested BIOS code paths) */
>+int acpi_in_suspend;
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_in_suspend);
>+
> u8 sleep_states[ACPI_S_STATE_COUNT];
>
> static struct pm_ops acpi_pm_ops;
>@@ -55,6 +61,8 @@ static int acpi_pm_prepare(suspend_state
> printk("acpi_pm_prepare does not support %d
>\n", pm_state);
> return -EPERM;
> }
>+ acpi_os_wait_events_complete(NULL);
>+ acpi_in_suspend = TRUE;
> return acpi_sleep_prepare(acpi_state);
There is race condition here.
Probably, it should be :
acpi_in_suspend = TURE;
acpi_os_wait_events_complete(NULL);
> }
>
>@@ -132,6 +140,7 @@ static int acpi_pm_finish(suspend_state_
> u32 acpi_state = acpi_suspend_states[pm_state];
>
> acpi_leave_sleep_state(acpi_state);
>+ acpi_in_suspend = FALSE;
> acpi_disable_wakeup_device(acpi_state);
>
> /* reset firmware waking vector */
>diff -r ac486e270597 -r abd89292c539 drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c Sat Mar 18 08:35:34 2006 -0500
>+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c Thu Mar 30 10:59:57 2006 -0500
>@@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static int tzp;
> static int tzp;
> module_param(tzp, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(tzp, "Thermal zone polling frequency, in
>1/10 seconds.\n");
>+
>+extern int acpi_in_suspend;
>
> static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device);
> static int acpi_thermal_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type);
>@@ -683,6 +685,8 @@ static void acpi_thermal_run(unsigned lo
> static void acpi_thermal_run(unsigned long data)
> {
> struct acpi_thermal *tz = (struct acpi_thermal *)data;
>+ if (acpi_in_suspend) /* thermal methods might cause a hang */
>+ return_VOID; /* so don't do them */
If you fixed kacpid, then this part could be removed.
> if (!tz->zombie)
> acpi_os_queue_for_execution(OSD_PRIORITY_GPE,
> acpi_thermal_check,
>(void *)data);
>@@ -705,6 +709,8 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check(void *dat
>
> state = tz->state;
>
>+ if (acpi_in_suspend)
>+ return_VOID;
Could it cause trouble to caller?
> result = acpi_thermal_get_temperature(tz);
> if (result)
> return_VOID;
>@@ -1224,6 +1230,9 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(acpi_han
> struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
>
> ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_thermal_notify");
>+
>+ if (acpi_in_suspend) /* thermal methods might cause a hang */
>+ return_VOID; /* so don't do them */
Could it cause trouble to caller?
>
> if (!tz)
> return_VOID;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
