[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110530104231.GF17821@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:42:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix corruption of CONFIG_X86_32 in 'make oldconfig'
* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 09:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > You thoroughly misunderstood my prior regression report, the problem
> > with your patch was that your patch actually *broke* existing
> > filtered-randconfig behavior, for example trying to get a 64-bit
> > randconfig:
> >
> > make ARCH=x86_64 randconfig
> >
> > ... will today produce a 64-bit randconfig while with your old change
> > applied it produced a 32-bit randconfig 50% of the time.
>
> I believe that this 'filtered randconfig' behaviour is now fairly much
> the *only* use for the old 'ARCH=i386' and 'ARCH=x86_64'.
Not really, there's also:
make ARCH=i386 defconfig # writes 32-bit defconfig into .config
make ARCH=x86_64 defconfig # writes 64-bit defconfig into .config
make ARCH=i386 oldconfig # turns 64-bit .config int 32-bit equivalent
make ARCH=x86_64 oldconfig # turns 32-bit .config int 64-bit equivalent
And i use these variants myself, both as commands typed and in
scripts, in addition to the randconfig variants:
make ARCH=i386 randconfig # write 32-bit randconfig into .config
make ARCH=x86_64 randconfig # write 64-bit randconfig into .config
I'm pretty sure others are relying on these variants as well - they
are fairly logical along several dimensions.
So could we please fix the 'make oldconfig' behavior (which i fully
agree with you should pick up the bitness from the .config) *without*
regressing these other, working and useful cases?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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