On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:53:28 +0200 Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > Both matters were discussed during v1: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1522774551-9503-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ... (and the glory details are documented in features-refresh.sh ;-) ). So I'll admit to being confused, since I don't see discussion of the actual topic at hand. > As I suggested above, simply reverting this patch will leave this file, > (and only this file!) out-of-date (and won't resolve the conflict with > Laurent's patch ...). Reverting this patch retains the updates from earlier in the series, and does indeed make the conflict go away, so I'm still confused. What am I missing? 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
