On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:32:41 -0400
"Brown, Len" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I think we need to get rid of the acpi_in_resume hack
> >> and use system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING to address this.
> >Well if hacks are OK it'd actually be reliable to do
> > /* comment goes here */
> > kmalloc(size, irqs_disabled() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL);
> >because the irqs_disabled() thing happens for well-defined reasons.
> >Certainly that's better than looking at system_state (and I
> >don't think we
> >leave SYSTEM_RUNNING during suspend/resume anyway).
> If system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING on resume, theen __might_sleep()
> would not have spit out the dump_stack() above.
> This is exactly like boot -- we are bringing up the system
> and we need to configure interrupts, which runs AML,
> which calls kmalloc in a variety of ways, all of which call
> It seems simplest to have resume admit that it is like boot
> and that the early allocations with interrupts off simply
> must succeed or it is game-off.
No, we shouldn't expand the use of system_state. Code continues to be
merged which uses it. If we also merge code which enhances its semantics
then we're getting into quadratically-increasing nastiness rather than
Callers should tell callees what to do. Callees shouldn't be peeking at
globals to work out what to do.
Lacking any other caller-passed indication, it would be much better for
acpi to look at irqs_disabled(). That's effectively a task-local,
cpu-local argument which was passed down to callees. It's hacky - it's
like the PF_foo flags. But it's heaps better than having all the kernel
fight over the state of a global.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]