On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 05:39:52PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > What do you think about providing arch/alpha/include/asm/bpf_perf_event.h > instead with either a dummy definition of `bpf_user_pt_regs_t', or perhaps > one typedef'd to `struct sigcontext' (as it seems to provide all that's > needed), and then reverting to v1 of arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > (and then just copying the contents of arch/alpha/include/asm/ftrace.h > over rather than leaving all the useless CPP stuff in) so that we don't > have useless `struct pt_regs' exported at all? Probably that's the right thing to do. However, it implies adding #elif defined(__alpha__) #include "../../arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/bpf_perf_event.h" in tools/include/uapi/asm/bpf_perf_event.h. I'm afraid that will result in too many loosely related changes for this patch series. I'm starting to think that the best way for the time being is to keep uapi/asm/ptrace.h and apply the fix there (i.e. revert to v0 patch posted on linux-alpha). And mention the pt_regs vs uapi issue in the commit message, of course, to deal with it later. Your opinion? Ivan.
