Re: revert yenta free_irq on suspend

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 21:09:25 EST

Shaohua Li <> wrote:
> Hi,
> > In general, I think that calling free_irq is the right behavior.
> > Although irqs changing after suspend is rare, there are also some
> > more serious issues. This has been discussed in the past, and a
> > summary is as follows:
> irqs actually isn't changed after suspend currently, it's a considering
> for future usage like hotplug.
> Calling free_irq actually isn't a complete ACPI issue, but ACPI requires
> it to solve nasty 'sleep in atomic' warning.

Is that the only problem? If so, then surely we can make free_irq() run
happily with interrupts disabled: unlink the IRQ handler synchronously,
defer the /proc teardown or something like that.

> You will find such break
> with swsusp without ACPI. Could we revert the ACPI change in Linus's
> tree but keep it in -mm tree? So we get a chance to fix drivers.

That depends on the amount of brokenness involved: if it's significant then
I'll get a ton of bug reports concerning something which we already know is
broken and we'll drive away our long-suffering testers.

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