From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCHv6] 02/28] build: build Kconfig and config rules Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 07:25:30 -0700 Message-ID: <5666F66A02000078000BD3D2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> References: <1448387538-12208-1-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com> <1448387538-12208-3-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com> <565C6CEF02000078000BA42E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <565C8D06.4080907@cardoe.com> <565D90FE02000078000BAA7C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <565F8E25.6070008@cardoe.com> <566011FB02000078000BB930@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5665F9CC.60408@cardoe.com> <5666959B02000078000BD043@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5666E62F.2090200@cardoe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5666E62F.2090200@cardoe.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Doug Goldstein Cc: Andrew Cooper , Keir Fraser , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 08.12.15 at 15:16, wrote: > On 12/8/15 1:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.12.15 at 22:27, wrote: >>> On 12/3/15 2:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 03.12.15 at 01:34, wrote: >>>>> On 12/1/15 5:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30.11.15 at 18:53, wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/30/15 8:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 24.11.15 at 18:51, wrote: >>>>>>>>> +config ARCH_DEFCONFIG >>>>>>>>> + string >>>>>>>>> + default "arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x86_defconfig perhaps? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I was told to drop support for x86 entirely in an earlier review. >>>>>>> Its not possible to configure for 32-bit x86 in v6. >>>>>> >>>>>> x86 != 32-bit. I think you're mixing this up with ix86 or x86-32. >>>>>> Here I consider x86 as to basic architecture without any >>>>>> particular bit width in mind. >>>>> >>>>> ok. Well the syntax is still "arch/SUBARCH/configs/ARCH_defconfig" so >>>>> the original is correct. There is no defconfig for the ambiguous x86 >>>>> family. You're either building for x86_64 or x86_32 (which I referred to >>>>> as x86 in my original response). >>>>> >>>>> This defconfig is for the 64-bit architecture of x86 (x86_64) and there >>>>> for its named correctly. >>>> >>>> But there is no x86_32 architecture form the hypervisor build's >>>> point of view, and hence x86 isn't ambiguous. In fact the mid-term >>>> plan is to remove leftovers of references to x86_64 (like the >>>> arch/x86/x86_64/ or include/asm-x86/x86_64/ directories) where >>>> possible. The only place they need to be kept are in the public >>>> interface. >>> >>> That's fine but you don't build things for "x86". You build them for >>> "x86_64". XEN_TARGET_ARCH takes in "x86_64". >> >> The XEN_TARGET_ARCH value is of no interest here. The only fact >> that I care about is that there's only one x86 configuration, and >> hence I can't see why it shouldn't be named x86_defconfig. > > This is just how the upstream stuff works. Are we forking upstream's > kconfig just so we can call it "x86" instead of "x86_64"? I don't think using config ARCH_DEFCONFIG string default "arch/x86/configs/x86_defconfig" instead of config ARCH_DEFCONFIG string default "arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig" in a Kconfig file of ours is a fork. Or am I overlooking some other aspect? Jan