Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Existing sentence on cross-compilation that mentions ppc64 does not > make much sense in today's perspective. > > Expand it for the benefits of testing against architectures of > different word sizes and endianness. > > Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: Split out change in the English doc from v1 [1]. > Keep Randy's Rb tag (as it was meant for the change in English doc). > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250128102805.112691-2-akiyks@xxxxxxxxx/ > -- > Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > index e531dd504b6c..88b6358258d7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > @@ -91,9 +91,12 @@ Build your code > fix any issues. > > 2) Builds on multiple CPU architectures by using local cross-compile tools > - or some other build farm. Note that ppc64 is a good architecture for > - cross-compilation checking because it tends to use ``unsigned long`` for > - 64-bit quantities. > + or some other build farm. > + Note that testing against architectures of different word sizes > + (32- and 64-bit) and different endianness (big- and little-) is effective > + in catching various portability issues due to false assumptions on > + representable quantity range, data alignment, or endianness, among > + others. > Applied, thanks. jon
