From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756169AbYAJLnQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:43:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753087AbYAJLnC (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:43:02 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:33286 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752958AbYAJLnA (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:43:00 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [PATCH x86] [15/16] Force __cpuinit on for CONFIG_PM without HOTPLUG_CPU Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:42:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, pavel@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar References: <20080103442.621670000@suse.de> <20080110111514.GS25945@bingen.suse.de> <20080110112607.GE28740@does.not.exist> In-Reply-To: <20080110112607.GE28740@does.not.exist> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801101242.53504.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 10 January 2008 12:26:07 Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:15PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > But your patch does: > > > > > > +config PM_CPUINIT > > > + bool > > > + depends on PM > > > > That is because arch/x86/power/cpu.c where this happens is currently > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += cpu.o > > > > If it was changed to CONFIG_something else then yes that dependency > > should be changed too. > > > Then fix this first. Rafael indicated he would do that, but it is really outside the scope of my patch. I was just interested in fixing a linker warning. > > And the following other points you didn't bother to reply to also still > stand even after this fix: > - already __cpuinit code will waste memory with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y Don't know what your point is. Anyways if you think there is a problem somewhere please feel free to write patches. > - change shouldn't be x86 specific CPU initialization is deeply architecture specific. I don't see much use in generalizing that. -Andi