Re: [PATCH 34/35] tick: Provide tick_suspend_local()

From: Nicolas Pitre
Date: Tue Feb 17 2015 - 12:55:52 EST

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:15:09PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This function is intended to use by the freezer once the freezer folks
> > solved their race issues. Also required to get rid of the ARM BL
> > switcher tick hackery.
> Totally agree with the patch(es), but I noticed that the ARM bL switcher
> does not depend on PM_SLEEP, so I do not think you can compile
> tick_{suspend/resume}_local() out if !PM_SLEEP, unless dependency
> is enforced by the ARM bL switcher config but I do not think that
> the config dependency really exists, Nico please correct me if I am
> wrong.

The ARM bL switcher does not depend on PM_SUSPEND nor does it enforce it
because it currently doesn't need it. So yeah, either PM_SUSPEND is
selected bringing quite a lot of code with it, or another symbol is used
for those functions (CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU maybe?).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at