On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Xiaotian Feng пишет: > > 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. This patch has been in the acpi-test tree for a while and I'll push it upstream with the next batch. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
