On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(suspend_device_irqs); > > > > > > I'm not too enthusiastic about this open coded implementation of > > > disable_irq() with slightly different semantics. > > > > The difference in semantics is important IMO, otherwise I woulndn't have > > done that. In particular, IMO, the condition should be under the spinlock IMO > > and I'd rather not synchronize all interrupts we don't really disable here. > > I don't say that the difference is not relevant. But the code is > almost the same and disable_irq() could have the sync_irq optimization > as well. Agreed. > > > Can we please move the fiddling with desc->* into > > > kernel/irq/manage.c and share the code there ? > > > > Can you please discuss that with Ingo? I moved that from manage.c at his > > request. > > Hmrpf. Will do. I just want to avoid that we have scattered functions > which deal with the guts of the irq code all over the place. I understand your concern, I'd prefer to avoid that too. > I'm fine with your loop in irq/pm.c, but the actual handling of the irq > internals should remain in manage.c. Well, perhaps we can add a parameter to disable_irq_nosync() telling it not to disable the interrupt if it's a timer one? Something like void disable_irq_nosync(unsigned int irq, bool skip_timer) etc.? Also, it could return a value meaning whether or not the interrupt has been actually disabled. > I'll have a closer look how to solve this. Thanks! Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
