From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765188AbXGZG4I (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:56:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757923AbXGZGzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:55:54 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:57154 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754395AbXGZGzx (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:55:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:55:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Len Brown cc: david@lang.hm, Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.23-rc1 In-Reply-To: <200707260026.08183.lenb@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <200707251238.50218.lenb@kernel.org> <200707251851.22777.lenb@kernel.org> <200707260026.08183.lenb@kernel.org> 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 On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Len Brown wrote: > > Feel free to share what you know about the benefits vs. the costs > of maintaining CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP as a build option. Why don't you just make CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependent on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND and STR? > If you feel that your system has been degraded > because it now includes what used to be excluded under > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n, please let me know how. I feel that I get asked to include a feature that (a) I have no interest in on that machine (b) I didn't need to include before. What was the advantage? And what was it that caused something like this to be a post-rc1 thing. That makes me really unhappy. This is a *regression*. Linus