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. >> >> 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. 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. >> 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. I sent the series on Aug 21st. Do the maths, it's not N months... >>>> 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 -j 8 ARCH=um > > to work? Stop denying problems, no matter how "major" or "minor" they are. "make defconfig ARCH=um" creates a defconfig for x86 as it always did. If you want to run a x86_64 bit user space, create a x86_64 defconfig. >> 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. That's your opinion. > -- 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. You missed SUBARCH=x86. That said, if you cover all cases I'll happily merge that. And honestly, your patches are minor stuff, they don't even touch C source files. Acting up like you do just because of some default values is crazy. We have more serious problems so solve. Thanks, //richard
