Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE

2007-08-05 Thread Pavel Machek
On Fri 2007-08-03 15:23:19, Len Brown wrote: > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > > > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. > > > > Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"?

Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE

2007-08-03 Thread Len Brown
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. > > Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"? Yes. > > I don't know for sure if the architecture list u

Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE

2007-07-31 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 08:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. > > Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"? > > > I don't know for sure if the architecture list unde

Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE

2007-07-30 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"? > I don't know for sure if the architecture list under SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > is correct. For now it simply matches the l