[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472D64B4.3000306@goop.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:20:36 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
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"
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> This also opens a chicken-and-egg problem... What kind of config is
> generated by allmodconfig when ARCH==x86? There is no good answer.
With a unified x86 architecture, the decision to compile with 32 or
64-bit mode isn't really different from SMP vs UP, PAE vs non-PAE and so
on. It's just a config option with global effects. Over time, the
number of config options with are really 32 or 64-bit specific will
probably pretty small.
> 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.
The architecture is now x86, with a further 32 or 64-bit parameter. We
already have config options for setting the sub-architecture.
J
-
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