* [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
@ 2025-06-23 7:25 Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:06 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-06-23 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
2025-06-23 7:25 [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-06-23 9:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-06-23 9:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2025-06-23 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
2025-06-23 9:06 ` Borislav Petkov
@ 2025-06-23 9:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:31 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-06-23 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
2025-06-23 9:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-06-23 9:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-06-23 9:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2025-06-23 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
2025-06-23 9:31 ` Borislav Petkov
@ 2025-06-23 9:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-06-23 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig
2025-06-23 9:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2025-06-23 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-06-23 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Dave Hansen, x86,
H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Díaz
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-06-23 9:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-06-23 7:25 [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/defconfigs: Explicitly unset CONFIG_64BIT in i386_defconfig Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-06-23 9:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-06-23 9:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.