On 12/08/2014 10:15 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
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...
Sounds like a good plan, thanks a lot for looking into it, Paul!
Meanwhile, also checkpatch.pl could emit a deprecate warning in case
a patch carries Kconfig code with 'boolean' in it, but I leave that
up to Christoph to decide. ;)
--
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
