From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: <46A8E78D.1040809@garzik.org> References: <200707251238.50218.lenb@kernel.org> <200707260026.08183.lenb@kernel.org> <200707261345.29902.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:50371 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763929AbXGZS1f (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:27:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: david@lang.hm, Len Brown , Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, david@lang.hm wrote: >> how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work >> right? > > No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not > personally interested in on that particular machine. > > I tend to like using minimal kernels. I don't use modules on most of my > machines, and I actually look over my config. Maybe I'm odd. But I think > it's a good thing to let people decide what they want (and what they do > _not_ want) in their kernels. > > I think forcing people to use CPU_HOTPLUG is a mistake. There's a reason > that existed as a config option. The ACPI changes basically mean that the > whole CPU_HOTPLUG config option is totally pointless, because everybody is > forced to have it. Indeed -- forced to have a feature that is applicable in reality to 0.00000001% of the user population, I'd wager :) I read and hone my .config to utter minimalist perfection too :) So count my vote here too, for -not- wanting CPU_HOTPLUG dead code in my kernel. Jeff