From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935287AbeEIO7Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 10:59:25 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:42106 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934331AbeEIO7Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 10:59:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 08:59:20 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Andrea Parri Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Laurent Dufour Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree Message-ID: <20180509085920.5fbb32f5@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea> References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea> Organization: LWN.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200 Andrea Parri wrote: > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). > > My bad; thanks for pointing this out. > > Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) > > I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" > (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain > available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should > you agree with this approach. So I'll confess that I balked on the lack of a changelog, but then decided to proceed with the patch (and the other removal as well) due to the lack of the Kconfig option. Now that I look a little closer, I think the real issue is that the "features" documentation assumes that there's a Kconfig option for each, but there isn't in this case. The lack of a Kconfig option does not, this time around, imply that the feature has gone away. I think that I should probably revert this patch in the short term. Longer-term, it would be good to have an alternative syntax for "variable set in the arch headers" to describe situations like this. Make sense? Thanks, jon