Re: [PATCH 1/10] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-03-11T22:07:28Z

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:
> > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > + desc->status |= IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> > > > >
> > > > > This flag needs to be checked in __enable_irq().
> > > >
> > > > [I overlooked this comment, sorry.]
> > > >
> > > > Why does it?
> > >
> > > To catch abuse and callers of enable_irq() when this flag is set.
> >
> > Hmm. This means you'd like to make enable_irq() fail if called with
> > IRQ_SUSPENDED set, correct?
> >
> > What if someone calls irq_disable() and then irq_enable() between
> > suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs()? That would be pointless, but
> > surely not a bug? Should irq_disable() also fail if IRQ_SUSPENDED is set?
>
> I'm not worried about nested ones.
>
> > Or should __enable_irq() only fail with IRQ_SUSPENDED set for desc->depth == 1?
>
> At least it needs a WARN_ON() in that case. A very prominent one.

I'm going to make it fail and print a warning for desc->depth == 1if IRQ_SUSPENDED is set.
Hope that's fine with everyone.

Thanks,
Rafael