Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] Container Freezer: Make refrigerator always available | From | Matt Helsley <> | Date | Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:30:26 -0700 |
| |
On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 00:53 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 1 of August 2008, Matt Helsley wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:27 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Le Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:07:01 -0700, > > > Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile > > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile > > > > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ > > > > obj-y = sched.o fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o printk.o \ > > > > cpu.o exit.o itimer.o time.o softirq.o resource.o \ > > > > sysctl.o capability.o ptrace.o timer.o user.o \ > > > > - signal.o sys.o kmod.o workqueue.o pid.o \ > > > > + signal.o sys.o kmod.o workqueue.o pid.o freezer.o \ > > > > > > I have the impression that the code in kernel/power/process.c was > > > compiled only if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP was set. Now that the code has been > > > moved to kernel/freezer.c, it is unconditionnaly compiled in every > > > kernel. Is that correct ? > > > > > > If so, is it possible to put this new feature under some > > > CONFIG_SOMETHING option, for people who care about the kernel size ? > > > > How about making it depend on a combination of CONFIG variables? > > Here's an RFC PATCH. Completely untested. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> > > Can you please also make the contents of include/linux/freezer.h depend on > CONFIG_FREEZER instead of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP?
Done.
> Also, I'm not really sure if kernel/power/Kconfig is the right place to define > CONFIG_FREEZER. > > Perhaps we should even move freezer.c from kernel/power to kernel > and define CONFIG_FREEZER in Kconfig in there. Andrew, what do you think?
I'll check this weekend for replies and repost the RFC PATCH on Monday if I don't hear anything. In the meantime I'll be doing some config build testing with the above changes to make sure it's correct.
Cheers, -Matt
| |