On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 05:49:20PM +0900, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > On 11/11/25 16:20, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > On 11/11/25 03:02, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:35:31PM +0900, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end was introduced in GCC-14, and we are > > > > getting ready to enable it, globally. > > > > > > > > Move the conflicting declaration to the end of the corresponding > > > > structure. Notice that struct iommufd_vevent is a flexible > > > > structure, this is a structure that contains a flexible-array > > > > member. > > > > > > > > Fix the following warning: > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd_private.h:621:31: warning: > > > > structure containing a flexible array member is not at the end > > > > of another structure [-Wflex-array- member-not-at-end] > > > > > > IIUIC, there might be data corruption due to this? If so, I think > > Okay, I didn't find evidence of data corruption. So, this patch can be > applied to > a -next tree.
Revisiting the design, the "lost_events_header" doesn't allocate data but only uses its internal header to raise a flag. So there should not be any data corruption. Yea, I think we are fine with your for-next patch. Thanks Nicolin
