On Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200 Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). > > My bad; thanks for pointing this out. > > Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) > > I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" > (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain > available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should > you agree with this approach. So I'll confess that I balked on the lack of a changelog, but then decided to proceed with the patch (and the other removal as well) due to the lack of the Kconfig option. Now that I look a little closer, I think the real issue is that the "features" documentation assumes that there's a Kconfig option for each, but there isn't in this case. The lack of a Kconfig option does not, this time around, imply that the feature has gone away. I think that I should probably revert this patch in the short term. Longer-term, it would be good to have an alternative syntax for "variable set in the arch headers" to describe situations like this. Make sense? Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
