Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

[Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org>]

On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 00:47 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
> 
> It's not entirely unintuitive.  That option's full name is "Support for
> suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs".
> 

I have to give reason to Len Brown on limit the options else this is
much more difficult.

Make sense define SUSPEND_SMP without define HOTPLUG_CPU ?
or make sense define HOTPLUG_CPU without define SUSPEND_SMP ?
Even if both options could make sense, we have to have the code prepare
for it, which couldn't be prepared.
But it is more easier and more importante focus on major cases which is:
"I don't care" and force some configuration and everybody test the same
code. Else in ACPI we have many issues to resolve like with this define
and without other, which philosophically could be interesting but is not
the major case and don't let us focus on stability.    

Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature