Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:06:45 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.66-bk12: acpi_power_off: sleeping function called from il legal context |
| |
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com> wrote: > > However, we also have to execute control methods early in the boot > sequence. down() would never block but it thinks it might, so we want to > call down_trylock instead. in_atomic() seemed to be a good (?) way to > tell whether we need to avoid down() or not. > > Thoughts on better ways to do this, perhaps? I guess I should at least > add a comment above that line. >
So really it's just the debug code which is being misleading? hm.
Couldn't you set some magical global ACPI flag:
acpi_super_early_init() { acpi_in_super_early_init = 1; do_stuff(); acpi_in_super_early_init = 0; }
And test that flag in acpi_os_wait_semaphore()?
It's a bit grubby, but so is the problem.
We do have this `system_running' flags in init/main.c which perhaps should be fleshed out into a more fine-grained way of communicating the kernel's start/run/stop state.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |