[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472D282B.2000208@garzik.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:02:19 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] replace "make ARCH=i386/x86_64 with make ARCH=x86"
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> This patchset unify the i386 and x86_64 Kconfig
> files for x86.
> In addition it replaces the use of ARCH=i386 and
> ARCH=x86_64 with the more intuitive ARCH=x86.
>
> The primary purpose of this patch serie is to
> enable make ARCH=x86 and let the config decide
> if we are building for 32 or 64 bit.
Yuck, I dislike. Please don't take away this nice development workflow.
the current workflow of
make ARCH=i386 allmodconfig && make ARCH=i386 -sj5
no longer works. Now, the new and ungainly step of editing the .config
is added, with vi or sed.
This also opens a chicken-and-egg problem... What kind of config is
generated by allmodconfig when ARCH==x86? There is no good answer.
The existing tradition of switching between 32-bit and 64-bit was quite
nice, and it was done in The Obvious Way(tm) -- via the method for
specifying the architecture/platform. Switching to Kconfig for that
decision is a step backwards in usability and IMO violates the Principle
of Least Surprise.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists