lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] kbuild: fix crossbuild base config
Hi,

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Blaisorblade wrote:

> You later say "If possible, I'd avoid this patch at all". Why? Is this code
> too intrusive, or implementing a wrong check, or bloating the source?

It adds a special case to the kconfig core to make it behave differently,
but it shouldn't behave differently depending on how the kernel is
compiled.

> > > E.g. if someone wrote a patch which stores the arch in .config and warns/
> > > refuses to load it for a different configuration, I would accept it
> > > happily.
> Yes, this is another idea, which is also fine, while not excluding the other
> IMHO.

This is the better solution, because it solves the more general problem,
when a .config doesn't match the Kconfig and not just your special case.

> > We already have part of this, except I don't know for certain of
> > CONFIG_ARCH == CONFIG_$(SUBARCH) (... to mix syntax all the hell up).
>
> No warning is output. Or better, yes, you get warnings, but tons of not clear
> ones, like "warning, undefined symbol".

I don't really expect to use CONFIG_$(SUBARCH) and rather add a real
CONFIG_ARCH to Kconfig.

bye, Roman

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.241 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site