From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753143AbaKEH35 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2014 02:29:57 -0500 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:59441 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbaKEH34 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2014 02:29:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1415172590.2589.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] backports: prefix c-file / h-file auto backport with BPAUTO From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , backports@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yann.morin.1998@free.fr, mmarek@suse.cz, sassmann@kpanic.de Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:29:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20141105002147.GJ12953@wotan.suse.de> References: <1415090582-14129-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1415090582-14129-11-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1415096092.2064.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20141104215002.GF12953@wotan.suse.de> <1415137850.2064.23.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20141105002147.GJ12953@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 01:21 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > I did at one point have BACKPORT_BPAUTO_* stuff on the compat/Kconfig for > > > the auto stuff but figured that was superfluous. I'll respin with it. > > > > Not sure what you mean? It seems to me you should just drop the changes > > like the one I quoted above. > > If we keep BACKPORT_BPAUTO as prefix on compat/Kconfig for auto backport > stuff we'll end up with BACKPORT_BACKPORT_BPAUTO, while technically correct > as you have pointed out, I find it personally superfluous. If we however > only use BPAUTO_ prefix on the compat/Kconfig we'll end up with BACKPORT_BPAUTO. Correct. > Its subjective then, but I was opting in to prefer to just keep BPAUTO_ prefix > with the resulting CPTCFG_BPAUTO for packaging and CONFIG_BACKPORT_BPAUTO for > integration for these, if you however feel its best to double the BACKPORT > prefix that's fine too, it just seemed odd (although I realize correct). No, I'm perfectly happy with CPTCFG_BPAUTO. But the *code* changes you're making here that check whether bp_prefix is being duplicated aren't necessary for that, and are in fact confusing and dangerous. johannes