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. -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
