On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:21:08PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:07 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In lieu of no Luke Skywalker, if you will, for a large kconfig revamp > > on this, I'm inclined to believe *at least* having some kconfig_symb > > exposed for some modules is better than nothing. Christoph are you > > totally opposed to this effort until we get a non-reverse engineered > > effort in place? It just seems like an extraordinary amount of work > > and I'm not quite sure who's volunteering to do it. > > > > Other stakeholders may benefit from at least having some config --> > > module mapping for now. Not just backports or building slimmer > > kernels. > > Christoph, *poke* Yes, I'm still totally opposed to a half-backed hack like this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
