Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:12 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This fixes the valid complaint about safe_halt being called with the >>> root domain unstalled. >> The fix should go to the caller. ipipe_suspend_domain() acts as a >> logical barrier: after that point, you may assume that the current >> domain is unstalled. > > The caller so far expect to find no interruption window between return > from ipipe_suspend_domain and yet another local_irq_disable. It expects > to remain stalled all the time until safe_halt.
Checked again: Opening the IRQ window here is bogus, may cause rescheduling delays to Linux (if not much worse things). I suppose it's better to adjust the assumption that ipipe_suspend_domain behaves like "sti; hlt". Are there users that rely on this? __ipipe_walk_pipeline does not look like it would. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ Adeos-main mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
