Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-09-26T11:44:28Z

Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Auto-detection of SUBARCH, which can be done with a simple call to
>> uname -m (the 90% case). The second patch I submitted prevented
>> spawning xterms unnecessarily, which we discussed was a good move.
>
> Covering only 90% of all cases is not enough.
> We must not break existing setups.
> That's also why my "Get rid of SUBARCH" series is not upstream.

Mine covers 100% of the cases. My series is about auto-detection of
SUBARCH, not its removal: you can still set a SUBARCH from the
command-line; existing setups don't break.

> Your second patch changed CONFIG_CON_CHAN to pts, which is ok but not
> a major issue.

"Major" or "minor" is purely your classification: don't impose your
value judgement on reasonable patches. I am the user, and I demand a
pleasant build process and ui. Moreover, how do you expect more
contributions to come in until existing patches make it to upstream?

> The xterms are also not spawning unnecessarily they spawn upon a tty device is opened.
> With your patch UML create another pts. Thus, the spawning is hidden...

It connects to an existing host pts device instead of spawning a new
xterm and connecting to the console io on that. Why is that not
desirable?

> I did not push it upstream because it depended on your first one and as I said, it's not critical.
> This does not mean that I moved it to /dev/null.

... and you still haven't told me what's wrong with my first patch.

> Again, the plan is to get rid of SUBARCH at all.

You've been harping about this plan for the last N months, and nothing
has happened so far. It's time to stop planning, and accept good work.

>>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86 (or SUBARCH=i386) will create a defconfig for 32bit.
>>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86_64 one for 64bit.
>>
>> Yes, that's how I prepared the patch in the first place.
>
> So, nothing is broken.

So the user is Ugly and Stupid for expecting:

$ make defconfig ARCH=um
$ make -j 8 ARCH=um

to work? Stop denying problems, no matter how "major" or "minor" they are.

> If you want "make defconfig ARCH=um" creating a defconfig for the correct arch you need
> more than your first patch.

No, you don't. Try it for yourself and see. Set a SUBARCH if you like,
and it'll still work fine.

> Again, "Get rid of SUBARCH" series has the same goal.

For the last time, getting rid of SUBARCH is Wrong and Undesirable.

-- 8< --
Here's a transcript spoonfeeding you the impact of my first patch:

$ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386
*** Default configuration is based on 'i386_defconfig'
#
# configuration written to .config
#
$ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86_64
*** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig'
#
# configuration written to .config
#
$ make defconfig ARCH=um
*** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig'
#
# configuration written to .config
#

In the last case, notice how defconfig automatically picks up
x86_64_defconfig correctly: if I were on an i386 machine, it would
have picked up i386_defconfig like in the first case. Without my
patch, the last case would have incorrectly picked up an i386
defconfig, which is Stupid and Wrong.