Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-30 Thread Pavel Machek
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 t

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-28 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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 bu

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-28 Thread Sergio Monteiro Basto
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 Le

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-28 Thread Stefan Richter
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 wou

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-27 Thread Adrian Bunk
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 wher

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
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 > +

Re: [2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-27 Thread Stefan Richter
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 conce

[2.6 patch] let SUSPEND select HOTPLUG_CPU

2007-07-27 Thread Adrian Bunk
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 cor