From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce CONFIG_HIBERNATION and CONFIG_SUSPEND (updated) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:54:17 -0400 Message-ID: <200707302354.18212.lenb@kernel.org> References: <200707251238.50218.lenb@kernel.org> <200707292323.29601.rjw@sisk.pl> 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]:47778 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S940826AbXGaDzd (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:55:33 -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 , Adrian Bunk , Stefan Richter , Nigel Cunningham , pm list 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