On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It seems the correct solution would be not to hijack __cpuinit
> > (as your patch does), but to create a new annotation.
>
> The rationale is that after suspend the CPU has to be reinitialized.
> That is because it is essentially like a reboot. All the previous
> CPU state is gone.
>...
But your patch does:
+config PM_CPUINIT
+ bool
+ depends on PM
+ default y
As an example, even plain ACPI support without any suspend support in
the kernel at all requires CONFIG_PM and therefore forces all __cpuinit
code to be non-__init after your patch.
And if the dependency was corrected to PM_SLEEP it will still make
the UP kernel use more memory since we currently have __cpuinit code
that gets discarded after boot but suspend/resume is apparently working.
Plus my other point that it seems to be wrong to do whatever change only
for x86.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
