[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708061356.23030.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:56:22 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [Resend][PATCH] PM: Fix dependencies of CONFIG_SUSPEND and CONFIG_HIBERNATION (updated)
On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2007-08-06 13:15:17, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:26 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I
> > > believe we have too many config options already.
> >
> > This is not an option the user is ever going to see. I think I'd
> > prefer
>
> Ok, option that users can't set is probably not evil.
>
> > having two new per-ARCH config symbols though:
> > config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> >
> > and then the architecture gets to define that when it can suspend.
>
> Looks like a plan.
Hmm, why don't we do the $subject change first (the advantage if it is that
the patch is ready) and then move the necessary definitions to the arch level?
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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