On 2022/6/27 11:57, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > It's the better to keep _have_kernel_option() isn't it? It will make this patch > smaller since many of existing _have_kernel_option() calls can be left as is. > _have_kernel_option() can be rewritten to call _have_kernel_config_file() and > _check_kernel_option(). To distinguish usages of _have_kernel_option() and > _check_kernel_option(), short comments on those functions will be helpful. Sure. I will keep _have_kernel_option() in my v2 patch. Best Regards, Xiao Yang
