Hi!
> > Wait, doesn't HOTPLUG_CPU also depend on EXPERIMENTAL?
>
> Damn, I started thinking about it, and then forgot about it when
> finishing the patch.
>
> My thoughts were:
> Is HOTPLUG_CPU still an experimental feature, or has it become a
> well-tested no longer experimental feature now
Hi!
Wait, doesn't HOTPLUG_CPU also depend on EXPERIMENTAL?
Damn, I started thinking about it, and then forgot about it when
finishing the patch.
My thoughts were:
Is HOTPLUG_CPU still an experimental feature, or has it become a
well-tested no longer experimental feature now that it's
On Saturday, 28 July 2007 00:25, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:55:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end
> > > up with all of the STR stuff
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 00:47 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
>
> It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is "Support for
> suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs".
>
I have to give reason to
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:47:37AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Yes, that's the price to pay if you want to select something that in
>> turn depends on a number of other things.
>
> Yes, but a good user interface is worth it.
That's right. But a hypothetical other way
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:47:37AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Yes, that's the price to pay if you want to select something that in
turn depends on a number of other things.
Yes, but a good user interface is worth it.
That's right. But a hypothetical other way would be
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 00:47 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is Support for
suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs.
I have to give reason to Len Brown
On Saturday, 28 July 2007 00:25, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:55:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end
up with all of the STR stuff built in, which
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:47:37AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
>
> It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is "Support for
> suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs".
>
> Only the place
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive, so
> what about something like the patch below?
Yeah, this looks reasonable.
May I suggest another level of indirection, though:
> +config SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE
> + bool
> +
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is "Support for
suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs".
Only the place where you find the option is unintuitive, as far as its
first application is
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:55:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end
> > up with all of the STR stuff built in, which is what you don't like (if I
> > understand that
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:55:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end
up with all of the STR stuff built in, which is what you don't like (if I
understand that correctly).
Adrian Bunk wrote:
The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is Support for
suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs.
Only the place where you find the option is unintuitive, as far as its
first application is
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive, so
what about something like the patch below?
Yeah, this looks reasonable.
May I suggest another level of indirection, though:
+config SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE
+ bool
+
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:47:37AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive,
It's not entirely unintuitive. That option's full name is Support for
suspend on SMP and hot-pluggable CPUs.
Only the place where you
16 matches
Mail list logo