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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
