From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: acpi-test tree on eeepc: EC error message on second resume Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:38:50 +0400 Message-ID: <48F100CA.2050600@suse.de> References: <48F0DB0C.7060201@tuffmail.co.uk> <200810112130.57757.rjw@sisk.pl> <48F0FEFA.7050308@gmail.com> <200810112140.16662.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:48793 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751007AbYJKTiu (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:38:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200810112140.16662.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , Alan Jenkins , linux acpi , linux-kernel Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> No, we discussed this before -- we are outside of the transaction, thus >> no GPE >> activity could interfere with ec_check_ibf0. > > Ok, this is in the process context and we don't really expect to get an > interrupt at this point, but what happens if the EC generates an event that's > not related to any transiaction. Is that guaranteed to never happen? Interrupt handler in this case can't cause a change to status register, thus our read of it will not be affected by interrupt. > > Thanks, > Rafael