Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:10:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > There is still enable_irq_wake()/IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE that tries to serve
> > a similar purpose but is equially wrecked for shared interrupts,
> > ideally this would be removed.
> 
> Let me comment about this particular thing.
> 
> I had a discussion with Dmitry about that and his argument was that
> enable_irq_wake() should imply IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, because drivers that
> set up interrupts for system wakeup should expect those interrupts to
> trigger at any time, including system suspend.  Hence the patch that
> added the IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE check to __disable_irq().
> 
> However, in the face of the problem that is being addressed here I'm
> not really sure that this argument is valid, because if the driver
> calling enable_irq_wake() is sharing the IRQ with another one, the
> other driver may not actually know that the IRQ will be a wakeup one
> and still may not expect interrupts to come to it during system
> suspend/resume.
> 
> Yes, drivers using enable_irq_wake() will likely want IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to
> be set for their irqactions, but that should not imply "no suspend" for
> all irqactions sharing the same desc.  So I guess it may be better to go
> forth and use a global "interrupts suspended" state variable instead of the
> IRQS_SUSPENDED flag for each desc and throw away the IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE
> check from suspend_device_irqs() entirely.
> 
> Peter, it looks like you'd prefer that?

My preference would be to shoot enable_irq_wake() in the head, its
fundamentally broken.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/