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 -- 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
