linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_SUSPEND? (was: 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]

Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:53:18 -0400
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, david@...g.hm,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_SUSPEND? (was: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1)

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.

-Len
-
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/