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

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 11:30 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but the stuff under compat/ is also treated specially by the
scripting - config symbols there automatically replace the ones in the
rest of the tree for example (see "config AVERAGE" for example, you get
"depends on BACKPORT_AVERAGE" and some BUILD_PACKPORT_AVERAGE magic)

johannes

--
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/