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

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> 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?).

Note the same problem exists with arch/x86/xen/suspend.c that calls 
tick_resume_local() yet this file is not subject to a dependency on 
CONFIG_PM_SUSPEND.


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/