On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:

> Xiaotian Feng пишет:

> > What's the status of this now? We can still see the sleeping function
> > call warning or enable irq at resume stage.
> > If acpi wants low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, what's wrong
> > with V2 patch?
> > 
> > We should not set any preemption points in irq or atomic. Since we have
> > a simple fix, and it did fix bugs, why should
> > we make things more complex?

> We should not do anything complex here, you are right.
> Consider me ACK your patch.

This patch has been in the acpi-test tree for a while
and I'll push it upstream with the next batch.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center