On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > @@ -895,8 +895,9 @@ static int acpi_idle_enter_bm(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > if (unlikely(!pr))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -
> > if (acpi_idle_suspend) {
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > cpu_relax();
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
>
> May I say this is ugly? Why can't we track the status of interrupts
> properly here?
It's not just ugly; it's illogical. What reason could there possibly
be for disabling interrupts and then enabling them again without doing
anything in between?
Alan Stern
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
