From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:04:13 +0200 Message-ID: <52444CED.40401@nod.at> References: <1377073172-3662-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1377073172-3662-3-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <52441025.9030308@nod.at> <52441407.9010603@nod.at> <52442108.1020304@nod.at> <524443AC.3040409@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ramkumar Ramachandra Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux-Arch , Michal Marek , Ralf Baechle , Paul Mundt , Jeff Dike , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux-kbuild , LKML , linux-m68k , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Linux-sh list , uml-devel List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Am 26.09.2013 16:36, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling? >>> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right? >> >> Correct. >> Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel. > > This is an insane expectation. This is kernel convention (it has > nothing to do with uml): Hmm, looks like I missed commit ffee0de411, thanks for pointing that out. Before ffee0de411 "make defconfig ARCH=x86" produced a 32bit defconfig. Now it produces a x86_64 defconfig. As UML is a variant of x86 it makes not much sense to do things the other way around even if we break assumptions. And, of course, this makes your patch valid. Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal? See make savedefconfig. Thanks, //richard From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:1660 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753168Ab3IZPE0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:04:26 -0400 Message-ID: <52444CED.40401@nod.at> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:04:13 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH References: <1377073172-3662-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1377073172-3662-3-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <52441025.9030308@nod.at> <52441407.9010603@nod.at> <52442108.1020304@nod.at> <524443AC.3040409@nod.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ramkumar Ramachandra Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux-Arch , Michal Marek , Ralf Baechle , Paul Mundt , Jeff Dike , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux-kbuild , LKML , linux-m68k , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Linux-sh list , uml-devel Message-ID: <20130926150413.PQQk2_AW9Z8q9Wd73NAAK1iYUCekSnDYwFxEEesq8-M@z> Am 26.09.2013 16:36, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling? >>> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right? >> >> Correct. >> Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel. > > This is an insane expectation. This is kernel convention (it has > nothing to do with uml): Hmm, looks like I missed commit ffee0de411, thanks for pointing that out. Before ffee0de411 "make defconfig ARCH=x86" produced a 32bit defconfig. Now it produces a x86_64 defconfig. As UML is a variant of x86 it makes not much sense to do things the other way around even if we break assumptions. And, of course, this makes your patch valid. Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal? See make savedefconfig. Thanks, //richard