Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 11:11:36 -0600 | From | Jonathan Corbet <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree |
| |
On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:53:28 +0200 Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > 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 ;-) ).
So I'll admit to being confused, since I don't see discussion of the actual topic at hand.
> 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 out-of-date (and won't resolve the conflict with 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 ...).
Reverting this patch retains the updates from earlier in the series, and does indeed make the conflict go away, so I'm still confused. What am I missing?
Thanks,
jon
| |