On 2025/2/27 03:45, Rob Herring wrote: >> Right, I think it's already backported to the LTS kernels, but if it breaks any >> in-tree users then we'd have to revert it. I just like Rob's idea to instead >> change the spec for obvious reasons 🙂 > While if it is downstream, it doesn't exist, I'm reverting this for now. perhaps, it is better for us to slow down here. 1) This change does not break any upstream code. is there downstream code which is publicly visible and is broken by this change ? 2) IMO, the spec may be right. The type of size is enough to express any alignment wanted. For several kernel allocators. type of 'alignment' should be the type of 'size', NOT the type of 'address' > We need the tools to check this and look at other projects to see what > they expect. Then we can think about changing the spec.
