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 break existing setups. > That's also why my "Get rid of SUBARCH" series is not upstream. Mine covers 100% of the cases. My series is about auto-detection of SUBARCH, not its removal: you can still set a SUBARCH from the command-line; existing setups don't break. > Your second patch changed CONFIG_CON_CHAN to pts, which is ok but not > a major issue. "Major" or "minor" is purely your classification: don't impose your value judgement on reasonable patches. I am the user, and I demand a pleasant build process and ui. Moreover, how do you expect more contributions to come in until existing patches make it to upstream? > The xterms are also not spawning unnecessarily they spawn upon a tty device is opened. > With your patch UML create another pts. Thus, the spawning is hidden... It connects to an existing host pts device instead of spawning a new xterm and connecting to the console io on that. Why is that not desirable? > I did not push it upstream because it depended on your first one and as I said, it's not critical. > This does not mean that I moved it to /dev/null. ... and you still haven't told me what's wrong with my first patch. > Again, the plan is to get rid of SUBARCH at all. You've been harping about this plan for the last N months, and nothing has happened so far. It's time to stop planning, and accept good work. >>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86 (or SUBARCH=i386) will create a defconfig for 32bit. >>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86_64 one for 64bit. >> >> Yes, that's how I prepared the patch in the first place. > > So, nothing is broken. So the user is Ugly and Stupid for expecting: $ make defconfig ARCH=um $ make -j 8 ARCH=um to work? Stop denying problems, no matter how "major" or "minor" they are. > If you want "make defconfig ARCH=um" creating a defconfig for the correct arch you need > more than your first patch. No, you don't. Try it for yourself and see. Set a SUBARCH if you like, and it'll still work fine. > Again, "Get rid of SUBARCH" series has the same goal. For the last time, getting rid of SUBARCH is Wrong and Undesirable. -- 8< -- Here's a transcript spoonfeeding you the impact of my first patch: $ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386 *** Default configuration is based on 'i386_defconfig' # # configuration written to .config # $ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86_64 *** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig' # # configuration written to .config # $ make defconfig ARCH=um *** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig' # # configuration written to .config # In the last case, notice how defconfig automatically picks up x86_64_defconfig correctly: if I were on an i386 machine, it would have picked up i386_defconfig like in the first case. Without my patch, the last case would have incorrectly picked up an i386 defconfig, which is Stupid and Wrong. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
