From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: CONFIG_SUSPEND? (was: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:53:18 -0400 Message-ID: <200707302353.19217.lenb@kernel.org> References: <200707251238.50218.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:47641 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761845AbXGaDyI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:54:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , david@lang.hm, Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek 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. -Len