Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

[Rob Landley]

I ran "make ARCH=x86_64 menuconfig", did a lot of editing, and saved 
the .config.  Then I copied that to a backup, ran "make oldconfig" on the 
config I'd just saved, and compared it with the backup:

--- .config     2007-02-27 18:10:01.000000000 -0500
+++ tryit       2007-02-27 18:09:09.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 #
 # Automatically generated make config: don't edit
 # Linux kernel version: 2.6.20
-# Tue Feb 27 18:10:01 2007
+# Tue Feb 27 18:08:41 2007
 #
 CONFIG_X86_64=y
 CONFIG_64BIT=y
@@ -120,6 +120,9 @@
 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
 # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
 CONFIG_ARCH_FLATMEM_ENABLE=y
+# CONFIG_FLATMEM_MANUAL is not set
+# CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM_MANUAL is not set
+# CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_MANUAL is not set
 CONFIG_FLATMEM=y
 CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP=y
 # CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC is not set

The first hunk I expect, the second I did not.  Anybody care to venture a 
guess why the visibility logic is unstable?

Rob
-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Re: Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:12:42 -0500 Rob Landley wrote:

> I ran "make ARCH=x86_64 menuconfig", did a lot of editing, and saved 
> the .config.  Then I copied that to a backup, ran "make oldconfig" on the 
> config I'd just saved, and compared it with the backup:
> 
> --- .config     2007-02-27 18:10:01.000000000 -0500
> +++ tryit       2007-02-27 18:09:09.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  #
>  # Automatically generated make config: don't edit
>  # Linux kernel version: 2.6.20
> -# Tue Feb 27 18:10:01 2007
> +# Tue Feb 27 18:08:41 2007
>  #
>  CONFIG_X86_64=y
>  CONFIG_64BIT=y
> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@
>  # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
>  # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
>  CONFIG_ARCH_FLATMEM_ENABLE=y
> +# CONFIG_FLATMEM_MANUAL is not set
> +# CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM_MANUAL is not set
> +# CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_MANUAL is not set
>  CONFIG_FLATMEM=y
>  CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP=y
>  # CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC is not set
> 
> The first hunk I expect, the second I did not.  Anybody care to venture a 
> guess why the visibility logic is unstable?

can we get .config^Wtryit ?  (version 0, not version 1)

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

Re: Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 6:36 pm, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > The first hunk I expect, the second I did not.  Anybody care to venture a 
> > guess why the visibility logic is unstable?
> 
> can we get .config^Wtryit ?  (version 0, not version 1)

Unfortunately, the first .config was generated by me tooling around in 
menuconfig, and then overwritten by a later build.  And now I can't reproduce 
the problem. :(

Rob
-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Re: Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

[Gregor Jasny]

Hi,

2007/2/28, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>:
> I ran "make ARCH=x86_64 menuconfig", did a lot of editing, and saved
> the .config.  Then I copied that to a backup, ran "make oldconfig" on the

I'd try with "make ARCH=x86_64 oldconfig"

Gregor

Re: Menuconfig has butterfly effects?

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 6:43 pm, Gregor Jasny wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2007/2/28, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>:
> > I ran "make ARCH=x86_64 menuconfig", did a lot of editing, and saved
> > the .config.  Then I copied that to a backup, ran "make oldconfig" on the
> 
> I'd try with "make ARCH=x86_64 oldconfig"

I did.  Sorry for the confusion there.  (If I'd gotten that wrong, there'd 
have been a bit more change. :)

Rob
-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery