[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47356A84.9020106@garzik.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:23:32 -0500
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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
> this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
They _are_ different in the real world... that's why
make ARCH=i386
is so often used.
> Do we need a way to say "build a kernel that is 64 bit"?
> If we need this then we should look at the most intuitive way
> to say so and this should work across x86, powerpc and s390.
>
> make 64BIT=y ARCH=x86
>
> looks so much more intuitive. And it is generic.
> This is just a proposal.
Or the short and straightforward
make ARCH=x86_64
to do the same thing (and incidentally what we've been doing up until
this point).
Don't get so hung up on "architecture" and actually look at what people
do _today_.
All other solutions proposed are simply _longer_ ways to do exact the
same thing. "more work for same outcome" isn't optimal.
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