Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261668AbUKCSUM (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:20:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261727AbUKCSUL (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:20:11 -0500 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:19596 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261668AbUKCSUF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:20:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:19:37 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Tom Rini cc: blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, julian@sektor37.de, mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca, sam@ravnborg.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] kbuild: fix crossbuild base config In-Reply-To: <20041103174856.GG381@smtp.west.cox.net> Message-ID: References: <20041102232001.370174C0BC@zion.localdomain> <20041103174856.GG381@smtp.west.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1912 Lines: 44 Hi, On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Tom Rini wrote: > > > This has actually created not-working UML binaries (since UML is always > > > "cross-compiled" for this purpose), as reported by Julian Scheid. > > > > This rather suggests, there is a problem with UML. Either fix your Kconfig > > to prevent nonvalid configurations or detect and report the problem at > > runtime. > > No, this is a damn annoying kbuild problem when cross compiling. The ability to create a nonworkable UML binary is _not_ a kbuild problem, especially in the UML case I would expect it should be possible to avoid this. > > > We all agreed on this kind of general, not UML-only fix, and I (Paolo) > > > implemented it. > > > > I don't like the two separate lists, it would be easier to just skip all > > absolute path names. > > I would also like to avoid this patch at all. If this really should be a > > problem, I'd consider to don't run kconfig at all in this case if there > > is no configuration and instead suggest running defconfig (or one of > > machine specific config targets) first. > > I have a feeling that changing the behavior of 'make {,x,g,q}config' to > fail if there's no .config will upset a lot of users, possibly even more > than would be upset by never looking in /boot or /lib ever. I'm only talking about cross compiling here. From people who do this, I sort of expect, that they know what they do. You can misconfigure a kernel in native compiles as well, this patch solves the wrong problem. E.g. if someone wrote a patch which stores the arch in .config and warns/ refuses to load it for a different configuration, I would accept it happily. bye, Roman - 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/