Re: [PATCH 2/3] kconfig: remove undocumented type definition alias 'boolean'

From: Christoph Jaeger
Date: Tue Dec 09 2014 - 18:14:11 EST

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 12:49:17PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> 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 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. ;)

Agree. Thanks for reviewing and testing!

I'll resend a series on top of linux-next that takes all of your suggestions
into account.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at