> >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.
> I didn't propose that kmalloc callers peek at system_state.
> I proposed that system_state be set properly on resume
> exactly like it is set on boot -- SYSTEM_RUNNING means
> we are up with interrupts enabled.
> Note that this issue is not specific to ACPI, any other code
> that calls kmalloc during resume will hit __might_sleep().
> This is taken care of by system_state in the case of boot
> and the callers don't know anything about it -- resume
> is the same case and should work the same way.
I'd agree with Andrew here -- lets not mess with system_state. It is
broken by design, anyway.
Part of code would prefer SYSTEM_BOOTING during resume (because we are
initializing the devices), but I'm pretty sure some other piece of
code will get confused by that.
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
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]