From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]:38825 "EHLO astoria.ccjclearline.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754145AbZGVM1b (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27:31 -0400 Received: from cpe002129687b04-cm001225dbafb6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([99.235.241.187] helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MTaux-0007Zh-DR for linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:25:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" Subject: "header-y" versus "unifdef-y"? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: kbuild devel list is it my imagination, or did someone recently propose that there will soon be no distinction between those two Kbuild directives since it's just as easy to "unifdef" all of them, no matter what? has that patch already been submitted for the next major release? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday "Kernel Newbie Corner" column @ linux.com: http://cli.gs/WG6WYX ========================================================================