On 11/16/23 20:55, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 20:45 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
As I already mentioned for Timur's patch [2], I'd prefer to get a fix
upstream
(meaning [1] in this case). Of course, that's probably more up to Timur to
tell
if this will work out.
Don't count on it.
I see. Well, I think it's fine. Once we implement a decent abstraction we likely
don't need those header files in the kernel anymore.
@Gustavo, if you agree I will discard the indentation change when applying the
patch to keep the diff as small as possible.
- Danilo
Even if I did change [0] to [], I'm not going to be able to add the
"__counted_by(numEntries);" because that's just not something that our build
system uses.
And even then, I would need to change all [0] to [].
You're not going to be able to use RM's header files as-is anyway in the
long term. If we changed the layout of PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE, we're not
going to create a PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE2 and keep both around. We're just
going to change PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE and pretend the previous version never
existed. You will then have to manually copy the new struct to your header
files and and maintain two versions yourself.
