On Mon 2007-07-30 21:09:33, david@lang.hm wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> why do you need hotplug just becouse you have muliple cpus? if you never 
> have any intention of useing suspend and your hardware doesn't support 
> hotplugging, why should you have to include the code for it?

Because otherwise we have way too many config options, and there are
basically no downsides? Too many options => too little testing of each
permutation...
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/