Re: [RFC v2 1/4] backports: replace CPTCFG prefix for CONFIG_BACKPORT

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That also makes me think of something else - we currently use BACKPORT_
>> as a prefix for some of the other stuff under compat/Kconfig, and in
>> fact rename some things (like CONFIG_BACKPORT_AVERAGE) so maybe also
>> using CONFIG_BACKPORT_ here isn't a great idea? Might want to use
>> something else, say CONFIG_BPT_ or so.
>
> That's a good point, I take it that it does not matter which one we
> pick for each, so long as its different? If so I think CONFIG_BACKPORT
> is pretty clear for things we carry over like device drivers, but this
> is just subjective and so long as we pick something I think it'll be
> fine.

Thought about this some more, the stuff under compat/ is just
backported through a slightly different strategy -- the Kconfig
copy-file stuff but yet its very similar to the copy-list mechanism,
where it ends up is different but I am not sure if it makes sense to
keep a different naming scheme for each backport strategy.

 Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/