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?