Re: [PATCH] Don't override CONFIG_64BIT for ARCH={i386,x86_64} builds

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>> Ew, that's a nasty thing to be prioritising over day-to-day usability,
>> and the fact that I can't just do 'make bzImage' without it screwing up
>> and asking me to reconfigure.

That argument is flawed because it could be used against just about any
regression that happens in the kernel: if only the new behavior is
deemed more important than the regression that it introduces.

As i said, there's no real problem here, i dont mind the change you are
proposing, but it needs to be done without introducing clearly
nonsensical regressions.

>> Isn't there a CONFIG_RANDCONFIG option? We could make it
>>    bool "64-bit kernel" if !CONFIG_RANDCONFIG
>>
>> Alternatively, we could just the top-level Makefile set ARCH=x86 when
>> it's inferred from the environment, and let people override it to i386
>> or x86_64 if they want to.
>>
>
> I think the fundamental problem here is that "make randconfig" is  
> allowed to retain *any* information from the previous .config; the same  
> is true for "make all*config", "make defconfig", etc.  These by  
> definition should blast the current configuration away.
>
> Now, "make randconfig" should ideally be able to generate either a 32-  
> or a 64-bit configuration (which would have to be done correctly), but  
> if ARCH is set we need to honor it.

Yep, as long as an explicit ARCH override is honored i dont mind some
side-effects on randconfig. (although people do have scripting around
randconfig so we need to make sure it's all sane.)

	Ingo