Hi Linus, 2018-06-14 2:49 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:29 AM Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I cannot come up with a name better than CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG. > > How about just calling it STACKPROTETOR_STRONG and leaving it at that? Good idea! > Make the "CC_HAVE_xyz" model for compiler feature tests, but when > actually picking an actual option, it's not really about the compiler > any more, except in the sense that it depends on it. I agree. I just respected the original naming, but CC_ is not sensible any more. > I guess we could leave the CC_STACKPROTECTOR option as-is, just > because it apparently has a lot of small uses in actual code too, but > there is absolutely nothing that uses CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG > outside of the actual compiler option choice (and config files) I agree to rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG to STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG. But, I'd like to rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR to STACKPROTECTOR as well. I guess 30 lines or so in the C code usage. Could you run sed directly in your tree? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- 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
