From: Brian Norris
Date: Tue Jul 29 2014 - 15:20:20 EST

Hi Peter,

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:58:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:10:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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.

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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at