Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751209AbVLLO3q (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:29:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751211AbVLLO3p (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0500 Received: from adsl-80.mirage.euroweb.hu ([193.226.228.80]:56850 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751209AbVLLO3p (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0500 To: ebiederm@xmission.com CC: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, rth@twiddle.net, davej@redhat.com, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, ak@suse.de, ashok.raj@intel.com In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code References: Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:28:21 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 743 Lines: 18 > > So move declaration of pm_power_off (and with it pm_idle) from the > > archs that do define it to kernel/sys.c. This should fix the link > > problem, and at the same time remove some duplication. > > Sounds sane. > > Does powerpc still build? A key question is how do we handle architectures > that always want to want to call machine_power_off. I didn't (and can't) check, but it should. IIRC multiple declaration of a variable is OK, as long as at most one has an initializer. Miklos - 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/