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

[Nicolas Pitre]

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?).


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/