Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:06:00 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |