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 <t...@linutronix.de>
> > >
> > > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
