Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 18:06, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >> And, of course, this makes your patch valid. >> Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal? > > Yeah, it's close to a minimal configuration for the 3.10 kernel > (latest at the time of patch subm

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Richard Weinberger wrote: > And, of course, this makes your patch valid. > Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal? Yeah, it's close to a minimal configuration for the 3.10 kernel (latest at the time of patch submission). I was aiming to minimize the diff between the curren

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 16:36, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling? >>> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right? >> >> Correct. >> Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel. > > This is an insane ex

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling? >> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right? > > Correct. > Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel. This is an insane expectation. This is kernel convention (it has nothing to do wit

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 15:26, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > wrote: >> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >>> Richard Weinberger wrote: I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously create a x86_64 config on x86_

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling? > SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right? User-Mode Linux only supports two host architectures (called $SUBARCH) at the moment: i386 and x86_64. If you leave out the $SUBARCH on either an i386 or

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >> Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously >>> create a x86_64 config on x86_64. >>> This breaks existing setups. >> >> I'll fix this and re

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >> I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously >> create a x86_64 config on x86_64. >> This breaks existing setups. > > I'll fix this and resubmit soon. Wait a minute. You're now arguing about whether the gene

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Richard Weinberger wrote: > I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously > create a x86_64 config on x86_64. > This breaks existing setups. I'll fix this and resubmit soon. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the bo

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 13:43, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > 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. >> >> Cove

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
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 br

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 12:53, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: >> So, what exactly is broken in upstream? >> make defconfig works as it always did. > > Auto-detection of SUBARCH, which can be done with a simple call to > uname -m (the 90% case). The second patch I submitted prevent

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Richard Weinberger wrote: > So, what exactly is broken in upstream? > make defconfig works as it always did. 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 go

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 26.09.2013 12:40, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Richard Weinberger wrote: > Forget all that. What matters is that upstream is still broken, and > users are suffering. Despite a reasonable fix being submitted in July. So, what exactly is broken in upstream? make defconfig works as it always di

Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

2013-09-26 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Richard Weinberger wrote: > This patch is based on: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/4/396 This is the original patch I sent across in July. > diff --git a/arch/um/Makefile b/arch/um/Makefile > index 133f7de..5bc7892 100644 > --- a/arch/um/Makefile > +++ b/arch/um/Makefile > @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ > > ARCH