On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 09:25:17AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:26:32 +0100 Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > Jan 30, 2026 17:17:46 Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>: > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:34:15 +0100 Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > >> Some of them get broken by the new 'struct sockaddr', but some others are > > >> already broken just by the new transitive inclusion of libc-compat.h. > > >> So any header starting to use the compatibility machinery may trigger > > >> breakage > > >> in code including UAPI headers before libc header, even for completely > > >> new type > > >> definitions which themselves would not conflict with libc. > > > > > > Let's split the uAPI header changes from any selftest changes. > > > If you're saying the the selftests no longer build after the uAPI > > > header changes then of course we can't apply the patches. > > > > Yes, the selftests don't build anymore after the uAPI changes. > > > > "can't apply" as in > > * "can't apply separately" > > * "are unacceptable in general" > > this one > > > * "are too late for this cycle" > > ? > > > > None of this is urgent. > > We can do the selftests in one cycle and the uAPI in another one. > > Feel free to pick up the patches as you see fit. > > (The mptcp changes already go through their tree, so need to be dropped > > here) > > I can also resubmit the patches differently if preferred. > > The selftests are just a canary in the coalmine. If we break a bunch of > selftests chances are we'll also break compilation of real applications > for people. Subjective, but I don't see a sufficient upside here to do > that.
Okay. We'll have around this inconsistency then. > FWIW the typelimits change broke compilation of ethtool, we'll see if > anyone "outside kernel community itself" complains. Can you point me to that breakage? I was unable to find it. Thomas
