On Mon 2007-07-30 21:09:33, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote: > > >On Saturday 28 July 2007 12:55, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >>So I think the real issue is that we allow that > >>"suspend_devices_and_enter()" code to be compiled without HOTPLUG_CPU in > >>the first place. It's not supposed to work that way. > > > >I don't see how CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU justifies its own existence. > >This e-mail thread would have never happened if it were simply included > >in CONFIG_SMP, always. > > > >I agree, of course, that ACPI should never have had to work-around > >this by selecting HOTPLUG_CPU. But even though it is now done at > >the right layer, I don't see why PM should have to > >be bothered with selecting HOTPLUG_CPU either -- > >it should just come with SMP. > > why do you need hotplug just becouse you have muliple cpus? if you never > have any intention of useing suspend and your hardware doesn't support > hotplugging, why should you have to include the code for it? Because otherwise we have way too many config options, and there are basically no downsides? Too many options => too little testing of each permutation... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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
