On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
The patch may _work_, but I really hate it. That function naming is insane:
#ifdef
Ack on patches 2-5 in this series. It's just patch 1/5 that I think is
too ugly/odd to live.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-embedded in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
but maybe it would be about APM being enabled. Which is what the caller
actually seems to care about and talks about for the failure case. Maybe
you need separate functions for the is APM enabled case for the naming
to make
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, David VomLehn wrote:
What in the world are users going to do when they see a message about
output being lost? There is no way to recover the data and no way to
prevent it in the future. I don't think this is a good approach.
Sure there is. The console messages are
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
I think your memory is failing you. In 2.4 and earlier, the kernel
stack was 8kB minus the size of the task_struct, which sat at the
start of the 8kB.
Yup, you're right.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If you think we have too many stacksize problems I'd suggest to consider
removing the choice of 4k stacks on i386, sh and m68knommu instead of
using -fno-inline-functions-called-once:
Don't be silly. That makes the problem _worse_.
We're much
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:
This is something I never understood - embedded devices are not going
to run more than a few processes and 4K*(Few Processes)
IMHO is not worth a saving now a days even in embedded world given
falling memory prices. Or do I misunderstand?
Well,
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
We're much better off with a 1% code-size reduction than forcing big
stacks on people. The 4kB stack option is also a good way of saying if it
works with this, then 8kB is certainly safe.
You implicitely assume both would solve the same
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:
And although you said in your later reply that Linux x86 with 4K
stacks should be more than usable - my experiences running a untainted
desktop/file server with 4K stack have been always disastrous XFS or
not. It _might_ work for some well defined
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:
What about deep call chains? The problem with the uptake of 4K stacks
seems to be that is not reliably provable that it will work under all
circumstances.
Umm. Neither is 8k stacks. Nobody proved anything.
But yes, some subsystems have insanely
10 matches
Mail list logo
