[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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. 

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
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux