Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262386AbTIEKHl (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:07:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262401AbTIEKHk (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:07:40 -0400 Received: from [195.39.17.254] ([195.39.17.254]:2176 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262386AbTIEKHj (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:07:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:33:29 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Linus Torvalds , kernel list Subject: Re: Fix up power managment in 2.6 Message-ID: <20030905093328.GA200@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20030903174904.GH30629@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 868 Lines: 22 Hi! > > Notice that this is done during resume. You are free to suspend with 1 > > cpu, then attempt to resume with 2 cpus. Not *too* likely to happen, > > but.... > > That's a silly thing to do, though I don't support the notion of letting > people find out the hard way. Why not just fail on CONFIG_SMP until it's > done right? I guess runtime check for number of cpus is better idea -- with more P4's around kernels with CONFING_SMP will be very common. We should at least work in single-processor config there. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/