On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Pavel Machek wrote: > > 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. Whichever way you guys decide this should go, let me know. I'm sitting on a patch for ACPI (a couple of routines that make blocking calls with interrupts disabled) and I'd like to know what to do with it. Should I just send it to Len and linux-acpi as is? Alan Stern - 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
