On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 02:16:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > @@ -421,7 +423,9 @@ > > else > > acpi_safe_halt(); > > > > - local_irq_enable(); > > + if (irqs_disabled()) > > + local_irq_enable(); > > + > > return; > > } > > > > @@ -530,7 +534,9 @@ > > * skew otherwise. > > */ > > sleep_ticks = 0xFFFFFFFF; > > - local_irq_enable(); > > + if (irqs_disabled()) > > + local_irq_enable(); > > + > > break; > > > > case ACPI_STATE_C2: > > That's pretty ugly. Could the code be modified to have interrupt > consistent at this point? > Agreed that this is not very clean. The problem is that we cannot be sure about the interrupt state at this point as the low level idle handlers at this point can come from variety of different places like safe_halt, arch dependent pm_idle code (which is different for (32 and 64 bit at this point) and also pm_idle can be somewhere outside the kernel in some module as it is a function pointer. Thanks, Venki -- 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
