On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 04:03:19PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 6/9/20 3:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 02:38:29PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >> Does the struct actually have to be named? How about:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> >> index c5d96e3e7fff42..14ca25cda19150 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> >> @@ -653,8 +653,14 @@ struct task_struct {
> >> unsigned int ptrace;
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> - struct llist_node wake_entry;
> >> - unsigned int wake_entry_type;
> >> + /*
> >> + * wake_entry_type must follow wake_entry, even when
> >> + * CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT=y.
> >> + */
> >> + struct {
> >> + struct llist_node wake_entry;
> >> + unsigned int wake_entry_type;
> >> + };
> >> int on_cpu;
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
> >> /* Current CPU: */
> >>
> >>
> >> However, it would be preferable to not rely on different structs sharing
> >> the
> >> same field order, but rather write proper C code that uses the same struct
> >> everywhere to encapsulate these 2 fields...
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200605093704.gb2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> >
> > And I have more patches on top to clean up some of the anonymous union
> > stuff, that that's quite a lot of frobbing.
> >
>
> That is why I tried to keep it simple as hackish fixup patch.
Fair enough; I'll try and get the above variant merged to address the
build fail. Then I can chase down Paul's bug and finisht the cleanup.
