From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758439AbZBMLMs (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:12:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752503AbZBMLMj (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:12:39 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35148 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752760AbZBMLMj (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:12:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:12:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: David Woodhouse , x86 maintainers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't override CONFIG_64BIT for ARCH={i386,x86_64} builds Message-ID: <20090213111222.GA15679@elte.hu> References: <1234372298.3586.23.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090211172258.GE13239@elte.hu> <20090212072644.GA10253@elte.hu> <1234427819.3586.142.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <499481F2.3040107@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <499481F2.3040107@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > David Woodhouse wrote: >> >> Ew, that's a nasty thing to be prioritising over day-to-day usability, >> and the fact that I can't just do 'make bzImage' without it screwing up >> and asking me to reconfigure. That argument is flawed because it could be used against just about any regression that happens in the kernel: if only the new behavior is deemed more important than the regression that it introduces. As i said, there's no real problem here, i dont mind the change you are proposing, but it needs to be done without introducing clearly nonsensical regressions. >> Isn't there a CONFIG_RANDCONFIG option? We could make it >> bool "64-bit kernel" if !CONFIG_RANDCONFIG >> >> Alternatively, we could just the top-level Makefile set ARCH=x86 when >> it's inferred from the environment, and let people override it to i386 >> or x86_64 if they want to. >> > > I think the fundamental problem here is that "make randconfig" is > allowed to retain *any* information from the previous .config; the same > is true for "make all*config", "make defconfig", etc. These by > definition should blast the current configuration away. > > Now, "make randconfig" should ideally be able to generate either a 32- > or a 64-bit configuration (which would have to be done correctly), but > if ARCH is set we need to honor it. Yep, as long as an explicit ARCH override is honored i dont mind some side-effects on randconfig. (although people do have scripting around randconfig so we need to make sure it's all sane.) Ingo