Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] backports: define C code backport version info using CPTCFG_

Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-11-05T20:29:24Z

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:57:25AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 19:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
> >
> > In order to help unify the naming scheme for shared
> > backports versioning information rely on the CPTCFG_
> > prefix, when integration support gets added that will
> > translate to the respective CONFIG_BACKPORT_ prefix.
> > Kconfig opt env entries don't get propagated out, so
> > we need to define these ourselves. This leaves all
> > other names in place for packaging and just focuses
> > on sharing on the C / header code.
>
> What difference does this make? It'll break some scripting that we have
> for sure (assuming the BACKPORTED_ prefix), so naturally I'd like to see
> why it is necessary.

Sure, let me explain. So if we don't unify we will have to end up with defines
for some packaging version scheme to another. The approach I took here was to
minimize impact on on userspace side generation side of things and only
affect the target C code by modifying the Makefile to define variables
we can share. That's pretty much it. I ended up defining things with
CPTCFG_ as that will get morphed to the other bp_prefix later for us
when integrating. That lets us share it.

Addressing this on scripts that do rely on touching C / H files should
just be a matter of doing a direct translation to 3 variables.

Luis