On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 09:12, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 08:16:25AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h > > > > index 9f4428be3e36..a756b29afcc2 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h > > > > +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h > > > > @@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ > > > > #define FSCRYPT_MODE_AES_128_CBC 5 > > > > #define FSCRYPT_MODE_AES_128_CTS 6 > > > > #define FSCRYPT_MODE_ADIANTUM 9 > > > > -/* If adding a mode number > 9, update FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX in fscrypt_private.h */ > > > > +#define FSCRYPT_MODE_AES_256_HCTR2 10 > > > > +/* If adding a mode number > 10, update FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX in fscrypt_private.h */ > > > > > > > > > > As far as I know, you don't actually need to update the copy of UAPI headers in > > > tools/. The people who maintain those files handle that. It doesn't make sense > > > to have copies of files in the source tree anyway. > > > > > > > Doesn't the x86 build emit a warning if these go out of sync? > > The warning is emitted when building tools/perf/, not the kernel itself. > > According to https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191001185741.GD13904@xxxxxxxxxx, the > perf maintainers actually prefer that their files are *not* updated for them. > And I'd like to push back against having duplicate source files in the tree > anyway, for obvious reasons. So I think we shouldn't update this file. > Fair enough.
