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

[Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1671 bytes --]

Correct. Users expect Form SUBARCH=x86 a 32bit kernel.



Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> schrieb:

>On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
><artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>> I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will
>spuriously
>>>> create a x86_64 config on x86_64.
>>>> This breaks existing setups.
>>>
>>> I'll fix this and resubmit soon.
>>
>> Wait a minute. You're now arguing about whether the generic "x86"
>> means i386 or x86_64. Its meaning is already defined in
>> arch/x86/Kconfig and arch/x86/um/Kconfig: see the config 64BIT.
>Unless
>> i386 is explicitly specified, the default is to build a 64-bit
>kernel.
>> That is already defined for a normal Linux kernel, and user-mode
>Linux
>> should not break that convention. So, in the example you pulled out
>of
>> your hat:
>>
>>   $ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86
>>
>> the user should expect a 64-bit build, and not an i386 build as you
>> say. Both my patches are correct, and the "regression" that you
>> pointed out is a red herring.
>
>Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling?
>SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right?
>
>Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                        Geert
>
>--
>Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
>geert@linux-m68k.org
>
>In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a
>hacker. But
>when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something
>like that.
>                                -- Linus Torvalds

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2464 bytes --]