Re: [PATCH 2/2] kprobes: check CONFIG_FREEZER instead of CONFIG_PM

[Ingo Molnar]

* Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Check CONFIG_FREEZER instead of CONFIG_PM because kprobe booster
> > > depends on freeze_processes() and thaw_processes() when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> > > 
> > > This fixes a linkage error which occurs when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, CONFIG_PM=y
> > > and CONFIG_FREEZER=n.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Cheng Renquan <crquan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/ia64/kernel/kprobes.c |    2 +-
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c  |    2 +-
> > >  kernel/kprobes.c           |    2 +-
> > >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > looks good, the x86 bits:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> 
> man, we have too many config options:-)

Agreed :-/

The idea is that of learning-via-pain: many config options cause many 
fixes, which causes people to reduce config options. At least that's the 
theory ;-) /me looks at his .config size and wonders

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/