On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 21:36 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 20:41 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > > Well, it seems the treewide "boolean" cleanup should be done first. > > Removing support for "boolean" could than be a second, separate step. > > Just to ease review. > > This appears to have no effect on the .config files I generated for the > defconfig files in next-20141208. (After porting the patch and changing > those last booleans to bool, that is.) So that's good. > > If you'd resend as two patches on top of linux-next, I might add an > Acked-by: or a Tested-by:. My last mail on this series. To make sure the tree stays buildable that second patch to drop support for 'boolean' should only be applied a release or two after the cleanup patch has been applied. Otherwise we're bound to run into fun build errors in linux-next, and even mainline, for quite a few commits, aren't we? One tree still using boolean is all it takes... Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
