From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:41:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20140729204100.GI3711@ld-irv-0074> References: <20140724212620.GO3935@laptop> <13290270.IfKaUSRMLR@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140725055847.GQ3935@laptop> <20140729192008.GH3711@ld-irv-0074> <20140729192843.GP3935@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:40476 "EHLO mail-pd0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751693AbaG2UlF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:41:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140729192843.GP3935@laptop> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Torokhov , Linux PM list , Dmitry Torokhov On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:28:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > I'm curious what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that its input > > is simply an IRQ number (regardless of whether the IRQ is shared), not > > something that identifies the particular handler (e.g., struct > > irqaction)? > > Yes. I know that shared stuff is a massive head-ache, but I feel we > should not introduce primitives that do not work with it. Thanks for the reply. I could also have just read the rest of the thread [1], in which this very question was addressed already. Shame on me. Brian [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/28/60