On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:50:58AM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote: > On 2025-03-18 10:01, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 03:21:45PM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote: > > > > > Adding the aligned(1024) attribute to the definition of __rseq_abi did > > > not increase its size to 1024, for this attribute to impact the size of > > > __rseq_abi it would need to be added to the declaration of 'struct > > > rseq_abi'. We only want to increase the size of the TLS allocation to > > > ensure registration will succeed with future extended ABI. Use a union > > > with a dummy member to ensure we allocate 1024 bytes. > > This is in today's -next and breaks the build of the KVM selftests: ... > > since unlike the rseq tests the KVM rseq test includes the UAPI header > > for rseq which the padded union conflicts with. > Oh, I missed that, we need a more unique name for the union. > I'm unfamiliar with the workflow of linux-next, should I send a V2 of the > current patch, or a new one that applies on top? It depends on the tree that the patch was applied to - -next merges the current stat of the maintainer trees daily rather than applying anything itself. In this case that's -tip, I think incremental is good for them but ICBW?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
