Hi! > >Lacking any other caller-passed indication, it would be much better for > >acpi to look at irqs_disabled(). That's effectively a task-local, > >cpu-local argument which was passed down to callees. It's hacky - it's > >like the PF_foo flags. But it's heaps better than having all > >the kernel fight over the state of a global. > > I didn't propose that kmalloc callers peek at system_state. > I proposed that system_state be set properly on resume > exactly like it is set on boot -- SYSTEM_RUNNING means > we are up with interrupts enabled. > > Note that this issue is not specific to ACPI, any other code > that calls kmalloc during resume will hit __might_sleep(). > This is taken care of by system_state in the case of boot > and the callers don't know anything about it -- resume > is the same case and should work the same way. I'd agree with Andrew here -- lets not mess with system_state. It is broken by design, anyway. Part of code would prefer SYSTEM_BOOTING during resume (because we are initializing the devices), but I'm pretty sure some other piece of code will get confused by that. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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
