| Date | Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:14:38 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | [221/272] PM / Runtime: Dont enable interrupts while running in_interrupt |
| |
2.6.37-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
commit c3810c88788d505d4ffd786addd111b745e42161 upstream.
This patch (as1445) fixes a bug in the runtime PM core left over from the addition of the no_callbacks flag. If this flag is set then it is possible for rpm_suspend() to be called in_interrupt, so when releasing spinlocks it's important not to re-enable interrupts.
To avoid an unnecessary save-and-restore of the interrupt flag, the patch also inlines a pm_request_idle() call.
This fixes Bugzilla #27482.
(The offending code was added in 2.6.37, so it's not necessary to apply this to any earlier stable kernels.)
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reported-by: tim blechmann <tim@klingt.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
--- drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c @@ -404,12 +404,15 @@ static int rpm_suspend(struct device *de goto out; } + /* Maybe the parent is now able to suspend. */ if (parent && !parent->power.ignore_children) { - spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock); - pm_request_idle(parent); + spin_lock(&parent->power.lock); + rpm_idle(parent, RPM_ASYNC); + spin_unlock(&parent->power.lock); - spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + spin_lock(&dev->power.lock); } out:
|