| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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