On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 11:30 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> That also makes me think of something else - we currently use BACKPORT_ > >> as a prefix for some of the other stuff under compat/Kconfig, and in > >> fact rename some things (like CONFIG_BACKPORT_AVERAGE) so maybe also > >> using CONFIG_BACKPORT_ here isn't a great idea? Might want to use > >> something else, say CONFIG_BPT_ or so. > > > > That's a good point, I take it that it does not matter which one we > > pick for each, so long as its different? If so I think CONFIG_BACKPORT > > is pretty clear for things we carry over like device drivers, but this > > is just subjective and so long as we pick something I think it'll be > > fine. > > Thought about this some more, the stuff under compat/ is just > backported through a slightly different strategy -- the Kconfig > copy-file stuff but yet its very similar to the copy-list mechanism, > where it ends up is different but I am not sure if it makes sense to > keep a different naming scheme for each backport strategy. Yes, but the stuff under compat/ is also treated specially by the scripting - config symbols there automatically replace the ones in the rest of the tree for example (see "config AVERAGE" for example, you get "depends on BACKPORT_AVERAGE" and some BUILD_PACKPORT_AVERAGE magic) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
