Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756788Ab3IZLob (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:44:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:59047 "EHLO mail-ie0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756350Ab3IZLo2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:44:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52441407.9010603@nod.at> References: <1377073172-3662-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1377073172-3662-3-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <52441025.9030308@nod.at> <52441407.9010603@nod.at> From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:13:46 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , geert@linux-m68k.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, Jeff Dike , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3444 Lines: 91 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/