On 7/28/07, Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Len Brown wrote:
> >> FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a
> >> modulo of the size of section __mod_acpi_device_table=144.
> > Are you
On Mon 2007-07-30 21:09:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> >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
On Mon 2007-07-30 21:09:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
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
On 7/28/07, Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Len Brown wrote:
FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a
modulo of the size of section __mod_acpi_device_table=144.
Are you cross-compiling? The
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
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
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
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.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
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
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> OK, I'll prepare a patch to introduce CONFIG_SUSPEND, but that will require
> quite a bit of (compilation) testing on different architectures.
Sure. I'm not too worried, the fallout should be of the trivial kind.
Also, mind basing it on the
On Saturday, 28 July 2007 18:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
> > SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
>
> In other words, the problem seems to be that
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
> SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
In other words, the problem seems to be that
kernel/power/main.c:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> That three-liner will crash ACPI+SMP-HOTPLUG_CPU kernels on resume.
Explain that to me.
There should *be* no resume.
ACPI doesn't suspend/resume on its own, I hope.
It is all done by the top-level suspend/resume code, not by ACPI. ACPI is
a pure
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Len Brown wrote:
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> please pull from:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
>>> release
>> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>>
>> Building modules, stage 2.
>>
On Thursday 26 July 2007 16:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, I think the ACPI problem really is as trivial as the following
> three-liner removal fix. If the user doesn't want suspend, ACPI shouldn't
> force it on him.
...
> - # for sleep
> - select HOTPLUG_CPU if X86 && SMP
> -
On Thursday 26 July 2007 16:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anyway, I think the ACPI problem really is as trivial as the following
three-liner removal fix. If the user doesn't want suspend, ACPI shouldn't
force it on him.
...
- # for sleep
- select HOTPLUG_CPU if X86 SMP
- select
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
That three-liner will crash ACPI+SMP-HOTPLUG_CPU kernels on resume.
Explain that to me.
There should *be* no resume.
ACPI doesn't suspend/resume on its own, I hope.
It is all done by the top-level suspend/resume code, not by ACPI. ACPI is
a pure
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
In other words, the problem seems to be that
kernel/power/main.c:
On Saturday, 28 July 2007 18:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
And it's the *top*level* code that selects HOTPLUG_CPU. Through
SUSPEND_SMP (which will select HOTPLUG_CPU) and SOFTWARE_SUSPEND.
In other words, the problem seems to be that
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
OK, I'll prepare a patch to introduce CONFIG_SUSPEND, but that will require
quite a bit of (compilation) testing on different architectures.
Sure. I'm not too worried, the fallout should be of the trivial kind.
Also, mind basing it on the
Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Len Brown wrote:
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> please pull from:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
>
> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>
> Building modules, stage 2.
> MODPOST 157 modules
> FATAL:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:26 +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> Len Brown wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > please pull from:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> > release
>
> This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
>
>Building modules, stage 2.
>MODPOST
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a modulo of
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL: drivers/acpi/button: sizeof(struct acpi_device_id)=20 is not a modulo of
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:26 +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL:
Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Len Brown wrote:
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
This seems to break ia64 defconfig:
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 157 modules
FATAL: drivers/acpi/button:
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). If we have CONFIG_SUSPEND, you'll be able to
> choose ACPI alone.
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
> > CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
> > CONFIG_PM?
> >
> > There's quite some code
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
> CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
> CONFIG_PM?
>
> There's quite some code needed only for suspend compiled in when CONFIG_PM is
> set ...
Sounds
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:45, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> > > of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
> >
> >
Len Brown wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
>
>>> If you feel that your system has been degraded
>>> because it now includes what used to be excluded under
>>> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
>> Even if I want to SUSPEND* to I can't on my Dell Precision 530
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like
> > I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
> > by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
>
> how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't
> work right?
I guess I missed that message. What system didn't work
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Can you be specific about how much additional "bloat" your system
> must endure with CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
All of CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
Len, this is not about ACPI code. This is about CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. Which
I don't want. And which you forced on me.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
> right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like using minimal
On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
> > If you feel that your system has been degraded
> > because it now includes what used to be excluded under
> > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
>
> Even if I want to SUSPEND* to I can't on my Dell Precision 530
> boxes ,
> SCSI
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
If you feel that your system has been degraded
because it now includes what used to be excluded under
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
I feel
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
> by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
According to that logic, we should always compile *everything* in.
Do you see the problem?
And can you realize
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> > of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
>
> Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on
Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
>>> ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
>
> ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
> and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
.. and why do you think I want
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
> of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND
and STR?
> If you feel that your system has been degraded
Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
CONFIG_PM?
There's quite some code needed only for suspend compiled in when CONFIG_PM is
set ...
Sounds like a
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hmm, perhaps we should introduce a CONFIG_SUSPEND and change
CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND into CONFIG_HIBERNATION, both depending on
CONFIG_PM?
There's quite some code needed only for
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). If we have CONFIG_SUSPEND, you'll be able to
choose ACPI alone. :-)
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like
I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't
work right?
I guess I missed that message. What system didn't work right,
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
If you feel that your system has been degraded
because it now includes what used to be excluded under
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
I feel
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
.. and why do you think I want system sleep
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
Can you be specific about how much additional bloat your system
must endure with CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
All of CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
Len, this is not about ACPI code. This is about CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. Which
I don't want. And which you forced on me.
On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
If you feel that your system has been degraded
because it now includes what used to be excluded under
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
Even if I want to SUSPEND* to something I can't on my Dell Precision 530
boxes ,
SCSI is
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
I was actually asking how somebody's _system_ has been degraded
by this change -- but I haven't got an objective answer to that one yet.
According to that logic, we should always compile *everything* in.
Do you see the problem?
And can you realize
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND
and STR?
If you feel that your system has been degraded
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about the fact that Linus found the problem becouse his system didn't work
right?
No, it works, it just forces me to use a configuration that I'm not
personally interested in on that particular machine.
I tend to like using minimal
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:45, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 02:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs
of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option.
Why don't you
Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 06:07, Gabriel C wrote:
If you feel that your system has been degraded
because it now includes what used to be excluded under
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how.
Even if I want to SUSPEND* to something I can't on my Dell Precision 530
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
> >> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> release
>
>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. Not trivial for a user to select it
when it doesn't even appear on the menu. It doesn't appear
because CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP isn't enabled, but that doesn't
appear either -- because CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU isn't selected.
so have something
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >> ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
> >
> > ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
> >
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> > > release
> > >
> > > Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
> > > Also fixes
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
and thus will not select HOTPLUG_CPU=y
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
> > release
> >
> > Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
> > Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
> > Yes,
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
>
> Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
> Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
> Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two in before rc1.
I'm
Hi Linus,
please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two in before rc1.
I'm
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
Yes, I'd hoped to
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
and thus will not select HOTPLUG_CPU=y
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. Not trivial for a user to select it
when it doesn't even appear on the menu. It doesn't appear
because CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP isn't enabled, but that doesn't
appear either -- because CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU isn't selected.
so have something
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:40, Al Boldi wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
release
Fixes regressions -- a build
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
... ACPI now seems to select CPU hotplug. Why?
ACPI=y SMP=y systems require SUSPEND_SMP=y for system sleep support,
and that requires HOTPLUG_CPU=y.
Note that ACPI=y SMP=n systems do not need it,
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release
Fixes regressions -- a build failure, an oops, some dmesg spam.
Also fixes some D-state issues and adds ACPI module auto-loading.
Yes, I'd hoped to get the last two in
78 matches
Mail list logo
