On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2007-08-06 13:15:17, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:26 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I
> > > believe we have too many config options already.
> >
> > This is not an option the user is ever going to see. I think I'd
> > prefer
>
> Ok, option that users can't set is probably not evil.
>
> > having two new per-ARCH config symbols though:
> > config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> >
> > and then the architecture gets to define that when it can suspend.
>
> Looks like a plan.
Hmm, why don't we do the $subject change first (the advantage if it is that
the patch is ready) and then move the necessary definitions to the arch level?
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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]
[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]
