Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree

Jonathan Corbet
2018-05-09T14:59:25Z

On Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> 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.

Make sense?

Thanks,

jon