[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110531104839.GE24172@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:48:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix corruption of CONFIG_X86_32 in 'make oldconfig'
* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:25, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >> > I personally prefer 'make ARCH=i386 defconfig' and 'make ARCH=x86_64
> >> > defconfig' because it's a nice conceptual equivalent to:
> >> >
> >> > make ARCH=arm defconfig
> >> > make ARCH=mips defconfig
> >>
> >> No, ARCH= is just for cross-compiling. If you're *on* an ARM or MIPS
> >> box, you don't need the ARCH= bit.
> >
> > Still note that 'make ARCH=arm defconfig' will just work fine even
> > without cross-building, so i often use just that if i want to see
> > what default core kernel options ARM (or MIPS) has enabled these
> > days.
>
> That's still the first part of "cross-building", so the issue is moot.
The .config is sometimes the only bit i'm interested in - does an
architecture's "most important defconfig" turn on a particular core
kernel feature or not?
I dont want to pick one of the 123 ARM defconfigs. (123 is the
current upstream count of ARM defconfigs)
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