+1 looks like a good decision to increase the POSIX compliance Best regards Alin J
On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 12:07 PM Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, this supports our goal of POSIX compliance and avoids problems with > programs that assume the POSIX layout. > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 3:08 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 3:40 PM Marco C. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Thank you, Tomek and Alan, for your votes. > > > > > > The vote has been open since 22 October and has 2 binding +1 votes. > > > CONTRIBUTING.md 1.13 needs at least 4 binding +1 votes and no binding > > > -1 vote. If you are on the PMC and have some time, please have a look > > > at https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/20796 and vote. Questions and > > > concerns are welcome too. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Marco Casaroli > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 6:47 PM Marco C. <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > This is the vote for the breaking change in > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/20796, as CONTRIBUTING.md 1.13 > > > > step 5 requires. The [DISCUSS] thread "struct pollfd with the POSIX > > > > layout (breaking change)" got no objection. > > > > > > > > The change: > > > > struct pollfd gets the POSIX layout: int fd, short events, short > > > > revents (8 bytes). Today it is 40 bytes on a 64-bit target and 24 > bytes > > > > on a 32-bit target. The kernel fields (arg, cb, priv) and the 32-bit > > > > event masks move to a new kernel type, struct pollfd_s, in > > > > include/nuttx/poll.h. poll() copies the entries into kernel memory > and > > > > copies revents back. select(), ppoll(), pselect(), epoll and the > system > > > > call interface do not change. > > > > > > > > Reference: <poll.h> in IEEE Std 1003.1-2017 / The Open Group Base > > > > Specifications Issue 7, 2018 edition: > > > > > > > > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/basedefs/poll.h.html > > > > > > > > Why it is necessary: > > > > - A program or library that uses the standard layout (for example the > > > > Rust libc crate) gets its neighbouring entries overwritten by > poll(). > > > > - In flat and protected builds, the kernel writes a callback pointer > > > > into the user array and calls it from poll_notify(), often in an > > > > interrupt handler. In a protected build user code can change that > > > > pointer. > > > > - Two threads cannot poll the same array. On the ESP32-S3 this > crashes > > > > the board today (store to address 0 in pipecommon_poll()). > > > > > > > > Non-breaking alternative: there is none. POSIX defines struct pollfd > > > > with these three fields only, so a program that uses the standard > type > > > > cannot get a correct result while the NuttX type keeps its extra > > fields. > > > > Keeping the old layout under a new name keeps the problem. > > > > > > > > Quick fix: > > > > - Applications: rebuild. Code that uses only fd, events and revents > > > > needs no change. Print events and revents with %x, not PRIx32 > > > > (nuttx-apps #3878, merged). > > > > - Out-of-tree drivers: rename struct pollfd to struct pollfd_s in the > > > > poll methods, the waiter arrays and the poll callbacks, and include > > > > <nuttx/poll.h> if the file does not include <nuttx/fs/fs.h>. The > > > > compiler reports every place that is not renamed. > > > > > > > > Tests: build and runtime logs on real hardware (RP2350, Cortex-M33, > and > > > > ESP32-S3, Xtensa LX7) are in the PR, with ostest and a test of the > > > > layout, of poll() on standard arrays, and of two threads on one > array. > > > > > > > > Cost: +168 bytes of code (flat build) and +48 bytes (kernel build) on > > > > qemu-armv8a; the stack of poll() grows by 160 bytes (64-bit) or 96 > > > > bytes (32-bit). > > > > > > > > The vote is open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept the change > > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > > [ ] -1 Reject the change, because... > > > > > > > > NuttX PMC members cast binding votes. The change needs at least 4 > > > > binding +1 votes and no binding -1 vote. > > > > > > > > My vote: +1 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Marco Casaroli > > > > > >
