Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755991Ab1EaN4u (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2011 09:56:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59826 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752285Ab1EaN4r (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2011 09:56:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:56:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Woodhouse Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix corruption of CONFIG_X86_32 in 'make oldconfig' Message-ID: <20110531135627.GB15598@elte.hu> References: <1A4DB87D-9B32-44C0-B7C9-47A003CABD96@mit.edu> <20110530195545.GG2890@dhcp-172-31-194-241.cam.corp.google.com> <20110531075306.GB20798@elte.hu> <1306832148.2029.484.camel@i7.infradead.org> <20110531104106.GD24172@elte.hu> <1306842211.2029.531.camel@i7.infradead.org> <20110531124537.GA10249@elte.hu> <1306849477.2029.570.camel@i7.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1306849477.2029.570.camel@i7.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2062 Lines: 50 * David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 14:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > Also, i prefer to type out the architecture due to: > > > > | ...So if i get an ARM > > > > | bugreport that gives me the appearance of a core kernel bug i will > > > > | often start by converting that to an x86 .config via 'make > > > > | ARCH=x86_64 oldconfig'. ] > > > > > > So first you point out that it's automatic, and then you still specify > > > it manually? > > > > Currently it's not automatic so i prefer to type it out. > > No, you were right the first time. It *is* automatic. The architecture *inside* the .config is not inherited automatically but overriden by the host architecture, so due to this assymetry i prefer to use explicit ARCH=xxx lines whenever i deal with configs. > > "I believe that this 'filtered randconfig' behaviour is now fairly much > > the *only* use for the old 'ARCH=i386' and 'ARCH=x86_64'." > > > > You are wrong again - it isnt, as me and others pointed it out. > > Not *so* wrong that all those other use cases couldn't be addressed > in the same, simple patch to allow CONFIG_FOO on the 'make' command > line. So "partially wrong" is not wrong? Indeed, if defined that way then i agree that you must almost never be wrong ;-) Really, i have little interest in continuing the 'who was wrong' angle of this discussion - i think people can read and i think people have made it rather clear what they are using and why, and what they'd like to see continue work, which requirements i'll try to apply to related patches you send. The last version of your patch looked good at first sight, except the changelog. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/