> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:24 AM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: mi...@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with disabling and
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
>
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
> wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one irq is pending
> but has been disabled before suspending.
>
> But there is another case missed, that one irq with flag
According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one irq is pending
but has been disabled before suspending.
But there is another case missed, that one irq with flag IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
which has been disabled before suspending, and
According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one irq is pending
but has been disabled before suspending.
But there is another case missed, that one irq with flag IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
which has been disabled before suspending, and
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one irq is pending
but has been disabled before suspending.
But there is another case missed, that one irq with flag IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:24 AM
To: Liu, Chuansheng
Cc: mi...@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with disabling and
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
On Tue,
6 matches
Mail list logo
