Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203018-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <b46fd359f62fc7c50790fb19a8814c89a10a7c1c.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: um: rust: Add i386 support for Rust
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>, Brendan Higgins
 <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,  Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,  Miguel Ojeda
 <ojeda@kernel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Masahiro Yamada
 <masahiroy@kernel.org>,  Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Anton Ivanov
 <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,  kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
 rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,  Wedson Almeida Filho
 <wedsonaf@gmail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>, Boqun
 Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, 
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>, Benno Lossin
 <benno.lossin@proton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>, Alice
 Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
 linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 20:02:17 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHa58Zcq3extXw4VXGnpVHbd5urzCGnh_oCo-BLMxMrJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240604224052.3138504-1-davidgow@google.com>
	 <20240605062234.GE279426@thelio-3990X>
	 <CAMj1kXHa58Zcq3extXw4VXGnpVHbd5urzCGnh_oCo-BLMxMrJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 19:59 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>=20
> > > -ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > +ifneq ($(or $(CONFIG_X86_64),$(CONFIG_X86_32)),)
> >=20
> > These configurations are mutually exclusive, so would it look more
> > readable to have it be:
> >=20
> >=20
> > ifeq ($(CONFIG_X86_32)$(CONFIG_X86_64),y)
> >=20
>=20
> Or simply
>=20
> ifdef CONFIG_X86

No, we're talking about ARCH=3Dum, so CONFIG_X86 isn't set, but
CONFIG_X86_{32,64} are set as the "sub" or "host" arch. :)

johannes