[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110531014418.GI2890@dhcp-172-31-194-241.cam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:44:18 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix corruption of CONFIG_X86_32 in 'make oldconfig'
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 09:12:17PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Which is apparently what KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG already does? It doesn't work
> for choices, but it's still fine for setting/clearing CONFIG_64BIT.
>
> We'll want to make it simpler to use - so you really can do something like
> make CONFIG_64BIT=n randconfig
> make CONFIG_64BIT=n allmodconfig
> make CONFIG_64BIT=y CONFIG_SATA_MV=y oldconfig
> etc. without having to create a text file. But that's not hard. A simple
> implementation might just *make* a file with the options on the command
> line and point KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG at it to start with, although there are
> probably cleaner ways to implement it.
On some architectures, I suspect there will be a dozen or more CONFIG
that have to be a certain way in order for the machine to boot. Are
you really going to want to put them all on the command line?
I suppose the question is whether people are using randconfig for
simple compile testing, or just for something that they actually try
to boot, either on real hardware or on a KVM system. I was under the
impression Ingo and others actually tried to boot their randconfig
kernels, correct?
- Ted
--
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