From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 18:53:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20180509165249.GA16976@andrea> References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea> <20180509085920.5fbb32f5@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509085920.5fbb32f5@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Laurent Dufour , mingo@kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:59:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200 > Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > > > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > > > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). > > > > My bad; thanks for pointing this out. > > > > Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) > > > > I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" > > (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain > > available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should > > you agree with this approach. > > So I'll confess that I balked on the lack of a changelog, but then decided > to proceed with the patch (and the other removal as well) due to the lack > of the Kconfig option. > > Now that I look a little closer, I think the real issue is that the > "features" documentation assumes that there's a Kconfig option for each, > but there isn't in this case. The lack of a Kconfig option does not, > this time around, imply that the feature has gone away. > > I think that I should probably revert this patch in the short term. > Longer-term, it would be good to have an alternative syntax for "variable > set in the arch headers" to describe situations like this. Both matters were discussed during v1: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1522774551-9503-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com ... (and the glory details are documented in features-refresh.sh ;-) ). As I suggested above, simply reverting this patch will leave this file, (and only this file!) out-of-date (and won't resolve the conflict with Laurent's patch ...). Andrea > > Make sense? > > Thanks, > > jon