Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265772AbTGRNbH (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:31:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265955AbTGRNbG (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:31:06 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:37582 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265772AbTGRNbE (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:31:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: To: Pavel Machek cc: , kernel list Subject: Re: Make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP independend on CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND In-Reply-To: <20030718091252.GA280@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 769 Lines: 20 > I do not really like the placement; process suspension is not really a > device driver. What about kernel/power/*.c, instead? The only reason I put it there is because the new PM code that I've been working on contains an abstraction layer and registration mechanism for the architecture-specific PM hooks (i.e. drivers for the low-level code), and it will contain the driver suspend/resume code. It seemed as good a place as any for it, though I personally don't have a preference. Does anyone else care? -pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/