[PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Andy Shevchenko]

From: Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>

A recent refresh of the defconfigs got rid of the following
(unset) config:

  # CONFIG_64BIT is not set

Innocuous as it seems, when the config file is saved again the
behavior is changed so that CONFIG_64BIT=y.

Currently,

  $ make i386_defconfig
  $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
  CONFIG_64BIT=y

whereas previously (and with this patch):

  $ make i386_defconfig
  $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
  # CONFIG_64BIT is not set

Fixes: 0e11f689ec03 ("x86/kconfig/32: Refresh defconfig")
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig b/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
index bd182325ebb4..9fc5c2eb58af 100644
--- a/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD=y
 CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL=y
 CONFIG_PROFILING=y
 CONFIG_KEXEC=y
+# CONFIG_64BIT is not set
 CONFIG_SMP=y
 CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST=y
 CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y
-- 
2.47.2

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:25:36AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> From: Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
> 
> A recent refresh of the defconfigs got rid of the following
> (unset) config:
> 
>   # CONFIG_64BIT is not set
> 
> Innocuous as it seems, when the config file is saved again the
> behavior is changed so that CONFIG_64BIT=y.
> 
> Currently,
> 
>   $ make i386_defconfig
>   $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
>   CONFIG_64BIT=y
> 
> whereas previously (and with this patch):
> 
>   $ make i386_defconfig
>   $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
>   # CONFIG_64BIT is not set
> 
> Fixes: 0e11f689ec03 ("x86/kconfig/32: Refresh defconfig")
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

No SOB by Daniel?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:06:42AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:25:36AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > From: Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
> > 
> > A recent refresh of the defconfigs got rid of the following
> > (unset) config:
> > 
> >   # CONFIG_64BIT is not set
> > 
> > Innocuous as it seems, when the config file is saved again the
> > behavior is changed so that CONFIG_64BIT=y.
> > 
> > Currently,
> > 
> >   $ make i386_defconfig
> >   $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
> >   CONFIG_64BIT=y
> > 
> > whereas previously (and with this patch):
> > 
> >   $ make i386_defconfig
> >   $ grep CONFIG_64BIT .config
> >   # CONFIG_64BIT is not set
> > 
> > Fixes: 0e11f689ec03 ("x86/kconfig/32: Refresh defconfig")
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> No SOB by Daniel?

Ah, this is just a cherry-pick (with fixing conflicts, updated Fixes
and removed the last paragraph) of 5y.o. 76366050eb1b ("x86/defconfigs:
Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig"), it should be standalone
patch. I borrowed the commit message.  So, whatever you prefer: I can send
it again as the original one, one of x86 maintainers can do themselves
the cherry-picking / conflict resolution, or I can resend it as mine.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:21:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Ah, this is just a cherry-pick (with fixing conflicts, updated Fixes
> and removed the last paragraph) of 5y.o. 76366050eb1b ("x86/defconfigs:
> Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig"),

What?

A 5yo patch cherrypicked from somewhere has as a Fixes tag a patch from 10
days ago?!?!

> it should be standalone patch. I borrowed the commit message.  So, whatever
> you prefer: I can send it again as the original one, one of x86 maintainers
> can do themselves the cherry-picking / conflict resolution, or I can resend
> it as mine.

You should do a proper patch as it is done and not do a mish-mash of old and
new things, clarify with Daniel who's going to be the author and you should
write a commit message which explains the situation properly, not borrow one.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:21:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Ah, this is just a cherry-pick (with fixing conflicts, updated Fixes
> > and removed the last paragraph) of 5y.o. 76366050eb1b ("x86/defconfigs:
> > Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig"),
> 
> What?
> 
> A 5yo patch cherrypicked from somewhere has as a Fixes tag a patch from 10
> days ago?!?!

The base for my patch was the 5.y.o. patch.

> > it should be standalone patch. I borrowed the commit message.  So, whatever
> > you prefer: I can send it again as the original one, one of x86 maintainers
> > can do themselves the cherry-picking / conflict resolution, or I can resend
> > it as mine.
> 
> You should do a proper patch as it is done and not do a mish-mash of old and
> new things, clarify with Daniel who's going to be the author and you should
> write a commit message which explains the situation properly, not borrow one.

It is describes situation properly. Just a test was different in this case.
Okay, let me try again in v2.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:46:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:21:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Ah, this is just a cherry-pick (with fixing conflicts, updated Fixes
> > > and removed the last paragraph) of 5y.o. 76366050eb1b ("x86/defconfigs:
> > > Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig"),
> > 
>> >  > What?

FWIW< the bug is repetitive (third time already?) that the i386_defconfig was
refreshed with ARCH=x86_64 or so and in the result the CONFIG_64BIT is set to
'y' for 32-bit code.

> > A 5yo patch cherrypicked from somewhere has as a Fixes tag a patch from 10
> > days ago?!?!
> 
> The base for my patch was the 5.y.o. patch.
> 
> > > it should be standalone patch. I borrowed the commit message.  So, whatever
> > > you prefer: I can send it again as the original one, one of x86 maintainers
> > > can do themselves the cherry-picking / conflict resolution, or I can resend
> > > it as mine.
> > 
> > You should do a proper patch as it is done and not do a mish-mash of old and
> > new things, clarify with Daniel who's going to be the author and you should
> > write a commit message which explains the situation properly, not borrow one.
> 
> It is describes situation properly. Just a test was different in this case.
> Okay, let me try again in v2.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko