From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM: Add arch_suspend_disable_nonboot_cpus Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:43:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20100223154359.GA6220@elf.ucw.cz> References: <201002211631.o1LGVsw8022630@d01av02.pok.ibm.com> <201002212337.10462.rjw@sisk.pl> <4B81B7C5.5060301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201002222014.07280.rjw@sisk.pl> <4B8313D4.4050802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B8313D4.4050802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Brian King Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > OK > > > >> Here is an alternative implementation of the patch. My test machine is > >> currently unavailable, so it is not yet been tested. How does this one look? > > > > Well, I'd like to do that cleanly from the start. > > > > Now, the problem is that PM_SLEEP_SMP selects HOTPLUG_CPU, because > > that's necessary for the other architectures to make SMP suspend work, but it's > > not necessary on your architecture. Moreover, you don't need to compile > > enable_nonboot_cpus() at all. > At least for the architecture I am enabling this support for > (PPC_PSERIES), upon looking closer, it looks like PM_SLEEP_SMP was > never defined, so enable_nonboot_cpus and disable_nonboot_cpus were > always nooped before, which I didn't previously realize. We probably > want to retain this behavior. > (Please wrap at column 80) This patch is already way better than the original one, but... Why do you want enable/disable_nonboot_cpus to be noped out? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html