Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv6] 02/28] build: build Kconfig and config rules

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.12.15 at 15:16, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/8/15 1:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.12.15 at 22:27, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 12/3/15 2:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03.12.15 at 01:34, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/1/15 5:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30.11.15 at 18:53, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/30/15 8:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24.11.15 at 18:51, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +config ARCH_DEFCONFIG
>>>>>>>>> +     string
>>>>>>>>> +     default "arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x86_defconfig perhaps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. I was told to drop support for x86 entirely in an earlier review.
>>>>>>> Its not possible to configure for 32-bit x86 in v6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x86 != 32-bit. I think you're mixing this up with ix86 or x86-32.
>>>>>> Here I consider x86 as to basic architecture without any
>>>>>> particular bit width in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok. Well the syntax is still "arch/SUBARCH/configs/ARCH_defconfig" so
>>>>> the original is correct. There is no defconfig for the ambiguous x86
>>>>> family. You're either building for x86_64 or x86_32 (which I referred to
>>>>> as x86 in my original response).
>>>>>
>>>>> This defconfig is for the 64-bit architecture of x86 (x86_64) and there
>>>>> for its named correctly.
>>>>
>>>> But there is no x86_32 architecture form the hypervisor build's
>>>> point of view, and hence x86 isn't ambiguous. In fact the mid-term
>>>> plan is to remove leftovers of references to x86_64 (like the
>>>> arch/x86/x86_64/ or include/asm-x86/x86_64/ directories) where
>>>> possible. The only place they need to be kept are in the public
>>>> interface.
>>>
>>> That's fine but you don't build things for "x86". You build them for
>>> "x86_64". XEN_TARGET_ARCH takes in "x86_64".
>> 
>> The XEN_TARGET_ARCH value is of no interest here. The only fact
>> that I care about is that there's only one x86 configuration, and
>> hence I can't see why it shouldn't be named x86_defconfig.
> 
> This is just how the upstream stuff works. Are we forking upstream's
> kconfig just so we can call it "x86" instead of "x86_64"?

I don't think using

config ARCH_DEFCONFIG
        string
        default "arch/x86/configs/x86_defconfig"

instead of

config ARCH_DEFCONFIG
        string
        default "arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig"

in a Kconfig file of ours is a fork. Or am I overlooking some other
aspect?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel