[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4659F3C8.8080606@gmail.gom>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:10:32 +0100
From: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>,
Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH} x86_64 PM_TRACE support.
Pavel Machek pisze:
> Hi!
>
>> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
>> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
>> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
>> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
>> error primarily in that:
>>
>> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
>> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
>> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
>> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
>> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
>> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>>
>> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
>> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
>> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
>
> ia64? did you mean x86-64?
>
> Otherwise looks ok to me.
>
IIRC enabling pm_trace on x86_64 was breaking compilation on ia64, so I
think Nigel meant the latter.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists