From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM: Add arch_suspend_disable_nonboot_cpus Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:49:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20100223164900.GG6220@elf.ucw.cz> References: <201002211631.o1LGVsw8022630@d01av02.pok.ibm.com> <201002212337.10462.rjw@sisk.pl> <4B81B7C5.5060301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201002222014.07280.rjw@sisk.pl> <4B8313D4.4050802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100223154359.GA6220@elf.ucw.cz> <4B84053D.60703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B84053D.60703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Brian King Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > > (Please wrap at column 80) > > > > This patch is already way better than the original one, but... Why do > > you want enable/disable_nonboot_cpus to be noped out? > > Today for PPC_PSERIES, PM_SLEEP_SMP is never defined, so for all the > current code paths that call enable/disable_nonboot_cpus (power off, > kexec), these functions are noops. I don't want to change that > behavior. Why not? > I figured I can just use the prepare_late and wake pm functions to do > the work I need to do. Let me know if you think this is a reasonable > approach and I'll be happy to resend the patch with an appropriate > subject line and description. No, I do not think that's reasonable approach. Please just implement enable/disable_nonboot_cpus; that's the clean fix. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html