From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754826AbZJCKex (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:34:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754633AbZJCKew (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:34:52 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50498 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754605AbZJCKew (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:34:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 12:34:41 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg , Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [regressions] Re: kbuild: save ARCH & CROSS_COMPILE when building a kernel Message-ID: <20091003103441.GA10874@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 0.5 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 20 to 40% [score: 0.3791] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sam, that arch-cache thing introduced in: 5755433: kbuild: save ARCH & CROSS_COMPILE when building a kernel isnt working very well in my experience. 1) it's a nuisance in cross-builds (it broke several cross-build scripts of mine) 2) it makes it hard to switch from 32-bit x86 builds to 64-bit ones: previously i only needed 'make ARCH=i386 defconfig' and off we went - now i have to add a 'make mrproper' step. 3) it can also get stuck: phoenix:~/linux/linux> make mrproper Makefile:571: /home/mingo/tip/arch/no/Makefile: No such file or directory make: *** No rule to make target `/home/mingo/tip/arch/no/Makefile'. Stop. phoenix:~/linux/linux> cat include/generated/* no phoenix:~/linux/linux> There's no way out of this state, only if i manually remove include/generated. (i suspect this is fixable) Dunno - why isnt the .config enough in terms of determining which architecture we are on? If we want more info we should put it into the .config - not some other hidden state. I do think a single file should carry all 'configuration state' - that makes it easier to reproduce things, etc. etc. Everything else is really just hindering us. Ingo