mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:26:30 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200711101626.31500.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071110075444.GA5707@uranus.ravnborg.org>

On Saturday 10 November 2007 18:54, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> > >and introduce ARCH=x86.
> > >It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
> > >
> > >      x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
> > >      x86_64/boot
> > >      kbuild: sanity check the specified arch
> >
> > IMO it negatives impacts the workflow when you -remove- the ability to
> > set 32/64-bit on the make command line.
> >
> > Building and testing for both architectures now requires the additional
> > step of editing .config, which is a clear workflow negative impact at
> > least for me.
>
> When it was decided to unify i386 and x86_64 it was at the same time
> decided to handle them as a *single* architecture.
>
> Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
> this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
>
> Do we need a way to say "build a kernel that is 64 bit"?
> If we need this then we should look at the most intuitive way
> to say so and this should work across x86, powerpc and s390.
>
> 	make 64BIT=y ARCH=x86
>
> looks so much more intuitive. And it is generic.
> This is just a proposal.
>
> But lets focus on finding a generic solution and not try
> to hang around in old habbits.

I agree. So long as you can do it easily on the commandline, it's
no problem, and we should be consistent (in calling the arch x86).

  reply	other threads:[~2007-11-10  8:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-09 23:08 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86: unification of cfufreq/Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86: start unification of arch/x86/Kconfig.* Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86: arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu unification Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86: add X86_32 dependency to i386 specific symbols in Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86: add X86_64 dependency to x86_64 specific symbols in Kconfig.x86_64 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86: copy x86_64 specific Kconfig symbols to Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86: move all simple arch settings to Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86: move the rest of the menu's " Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86: enable "make ARCH=x86" Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and x86_64/boot Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] kbuild: sanity check the specified arch Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10  3:23 ` [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10  3:37   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-11-10  3:50   ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10  4:05   ` Brian Gerst
2007-11-10  4:12     ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-14 20:13       ` Roman Zippel
2007-11-10  7:54   ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10  5:26     ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-11-10  8:21     ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10  8:24       ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10  8:44         ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10 20:35           ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-11-10 20:46             ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 21:24             ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-10  9:39         ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 10:32           ` david
2007-11-10  9:21       ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10  9:26         ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10  8:23     ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10 10:13       ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10 15:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-11-12 11:59 ` Frans Pop
     [not found] <9nL9f-2n8-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <9nPcU-bm-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <9nTqh-6Cw-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]     ` <9nTTh-7w5-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]       ` <9nTTh-7w5-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]         ` <9nUcv-7UA-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]           ` <9o5hA-b8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]             ` <9o640-1rJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2007-11-11 21:03               ` Bodo Eggert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200711101626.31500.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeff@garzik.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®