On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:38, Pavel Machek wrote:Yes. The reason this entire thread started is because Linus, Jeff and others said that they didn't want code magically compiled into their kernel that they did not explicitly ask for -- even if the savings were small and that kernel was already something rather beefy, such as ACPI+SMP. The current code is simply broken, because it allows SUSPEND on IA64 if UP, but not on SMP. It should really be neither. Further, the only requirement to enable CONFIG_SUSPEND by default is PM && CONFIG_SMP=n, and that doesn't make much sense -- particularly since many of the non X86 architectures are small and according to the logic above, if SUSPEND (and PM_SLEEP, which it enables) adds any code to those kernels when they don't need it, then it would be a regression. thus my patch, if there is a list for SMP, there should be a list for !SMP. If the list is incomplete, we need to fix it. -Len -
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.27-rc5 |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] net: Fix the prototype of call_netdevice_notifiers |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
