Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 11:11:36 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 jc_docs tree
Message-ID: <20180509111136.127756a8@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180509165249.GA16976@andrea>
References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea>
        <20180509085920.5fbb32f5@lwn.net>
        <20180509165249.GA16976@andrea>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 out-of-date (and won't resolve the conflict with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