On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:29:50AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. OK cool. > 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. Understood, thanks for the review, hopefully this is addressed with the latest series. Luis -- 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
