lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectany objection to a wide-sweeping "unifdef-y" -> "header-y" change?

given that the Kbuild "unifdef-y" directive was tagged as obsolete
in favour of "header-y" well over a year ago, any objection to just
standardizing everything on header-y and removing all support
for unifdef-y?

is there any compelling reason to *not* do that?

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-29 13:29    [W:0.051 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site