On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 00:53 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 1 of August 2008, Matt Helsley wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:27 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Le Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:07:01 -0700,
> > > Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> > > > obj-y = sched.o fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o printk.o \
> > > > cpu.o exit.o itimer.o time.o softirq.o resource.o \
> > > > sysctl.o capability.o ptrace.o timer.o user.o \
> > > > - signal.o sys.o kmod.o workqueue.o pid.o \
> > > > + signal.o sys.o kmod.o workqueue.o pid.o freezer.o \
> > >
> > > I have the impression that the code in kernel/power/process.c was
> > > compiled only if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP was set. Now that the code has been
> > > moved to kernel/freezer.c, it is unconditionnaly compiled in every
> > > kernel. Is that correct ?
> > >
> > > If so, is it possible to put this new feature under some
> > > CONFIG_SOMETHING option, for people who care about the kernel size ?
> >
> > How about making it depend on a combination of CONFIG variables?
> > Here's an RFC PATCH. Completely untested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Can you please also make the contents of include/linux/freezer.h depend on
> CONFIG_FREEZER instead of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP?
Done.
> Also, I'm not really sure if kernel/power/Kconfig is the right place to define
> CONFIG_FREEZER.
>
> Perhaps we should even move freezer.c from kernel/power to kernel
> and define CONFIG_FREEZER in Kconfig in there. Andrew, what do you think?
I'll check this weekend for replies and repost the RFC PATCH on Monday
if I don't hear anything. In the meantime I'll be doing some config
build testing with the above changes to make sure it's correct.
Cheers,
-Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
