linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707252353150.3442@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
cc:	david@...g.hm, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1



On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> 
> Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.

Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND 
and STR?

> If you feel that your system has been degraded
> because it now includes what used to be excluded under
> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.

I feel that I get asked to include a feature that 
 (a) I have no interest in on that machine
 (b) I didn't need to include before.

What was the advantage? And what was it that caused something like this to 
be a post-rc1 thing. That makes me really unhappy. This is a *regression*.

		Linus
-
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/