Xiaotian Feng пишет: > On 12/12/2009 01:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >>>>> If there are none, fine. >>>>> >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT >>>>>> # define preemptible() (preempt_count() == 0&& !irqs_disabled()) >>>>>> # define IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET (HARDIRQ_OFFSET-1) >>>>>> #else >>>>>> # define preemptible() 0 >>>>>> # define IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET HARDIRQ_OFFSET >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, normally we want low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. >>>> >>>> Actually, explicit preemption points are NOPs for CONFIG_PREEMPT >>>> kernels, right? >> >>> Right. Do you have code? >> >> I'd prefer to spend my time with patches to areas that actually do >> take cleanup patches. > > What's the status of this now? We can still see the sleeping function > call warning or enable irq at resume stage. > If acpi wants low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, what's wrong > with V2 patch? > > We should not set any preemption points in irq or atomic. Since we have > a simple fix, and it did fix bugs, why should > we make things more complex? We should not do anything complex here, you are right. Consider me ACK your patch. Thanks, Alex -- 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
