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

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Wed Feb 18 2015 - 10:59:19 EST

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 02:35:24 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:31:42PM +0000, 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.
> Ah I see, the headers seem to do the right thing and declare the
> function in core (GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS) with a comment.
> But then the patch continues defining the functions under PM_SLEEP.
> I wonder why the build robot has not reported fail on this..
> Would the below make sense?

That needs to be done on top of the suspend-to-idle material that has just
been merged.

Why don't you drop the PM_SLEEP-related changes from the series for the time
being and let's clean things up top of it? That should be more straightforward
I think.


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