On Sunday 29 July 2007 20:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, I took this, and modified Len's patch to re-introduce ACPI_SLEEP on
> top of it (I took the easy way out, and just made PM_SLEEP imply
> ACPI_SLEEP, which should make everything come out right. I could have
> dropped ACPI_SLEEP entirely in favour of PM_SLEEP, but that would have
> implied changing more of Len's patch than I was really comfy with).
> Len, Rafael, please do check that the end result looks ok.
SUSPEND depends only on (!SMP || SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE).
This means that while we limit the architectures it can build on
if they are SMP, it can build on any !SMP architecture --
which probably isn't what we want.
I think the right way to go is your SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE suggestion.
Honestly, I though it was overly verbose when I first read it,
but I like it better now, especially since it works;-)
I'll reply w/ an incremental patch.
> I suspect ACPI could now take the PM_SLEEP/SUSPEND/HIBERNATE details into
> account, and that some of the code is not necessary when HIBERNATE is not
> selected, for example, but I'm not at all sure that it's worth it being
> very fine-grained.
As you know, I don't think that it is worth dedicated config options
to save 16KB on an SMP+ACPI kernel. The prospect of adding code to
slice that 16KB into finer grain savings seems even less worthwhile.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]