On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > I'm not worried about nested ones. > > Then you shouldn't be worried about IRQ_SUSPENDED at all, since that one > increments the disabled depth count. > > So _all_ disable/enable_irq calls will by definition be nested inside > IRQ_SUSPENDED. Still, if there's an unbalanced irq_enable() between suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs(), we'll not detect it immediately, but only in resume_device_irqs(). It would be better if the unbalanced call failed in that case IMHO. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
