public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071110075444.GA5707@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4735242B.1010801@garzik.org>

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> >and introduce ARCH=x86.
> >It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
> >
> >      x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and 
> >      x86_64/boot
> >      kbuild: sanity check the specified arch
> 
> 
> IMO it negatives impacts the workflow when you -remove- the ability to 
> set 32/64-bit on the make command line.
> 
> Building and testing for both architectures now requires the additional 
> step of editing .config, which is a clear workflow negative impact at 
> least for me.
When it was decided to unify i386 and x86_64 it was at the same time
decided to handle them as a *single* architecture.

Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.

Do we need a way to say "build a kernel that is 64 bit"?
If we need this then we should look at the most intuitive way
to say so and this should work across x86, powerpc and s390.

	make 64BIT=y ARCH=x86

looks so much more intuitive. And it is generic.
This is just a proposal.

But lets focus on finding a generic solution and not try
to hang around in old habbits.


I can certainly look into enabling a generic syntax but
that is a bit down on my TODO list (and most items above
this has something to do with the kids and not Linux btw).

If we go for the proposed syntax then it
should be a matter of teaching kconfig to look for
"64BIT" and set the 64BIT symbol accordingly.
And thenthe Kconfig files needs to be modified
so the they use "64BIT" to select between kernel
bit size.

	Sam

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-11-10  7:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-09 23:08 [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86: unification of cfufreq/Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86: start unification of arch/x86/Kconfig.* Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86: arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu unification Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86: add X86_32 dependency to i386 specific symbols in Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86: add X86_64 dependency to x86_64 specific symbols in Kconfig.x86_64 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86: copy x86_64 specific Kconfig symbols to Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86: move all simple arch settings to Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86: move the rest of the menu's " Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86: enable "make ARCH=x86" Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and x86_64/boot Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] kbuild: sanity check the specified arch Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10  3:23 ` [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10  3:37   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-11-10  3:50   ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10  4:05   ` Brian Gerst
2007-11-10  4:12     ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-14 20:13       ` Roman Zippel
2007-11-10  7:54   ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2007-11-10  5:26     ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-10  8:21     ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10  8:24       ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10  8:44         ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10 20:35           ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-11-10 20:46             ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 21:24             ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-10  9:39         ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 10:32           ` david
2007-11-10  9:21       ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10  9:26         ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10  8:23     ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10 10:13       ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10 15:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-11-12 11:59 ` Frans Pop
     [not found] <9nL9f-2n8-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <9nPcU-bm-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <9nTqh-6Cw-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]     ` <9nTTh-7w5-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]       ` <9nTTh-7w5-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]         ` <9nUcv-7UA-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]           ` <9o5hA-b8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]             ` <9o640-1rJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2007-11-11 21:03               ` Bodo Eggert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071110075444.GA5707@uranus.ravnborg.org \
    --to=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeff@garzik.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox