Re: [PATCH 3/3] check-uapi: use dummy libc includes

[Nicolas Schier <nsc@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:31:07PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On 2026-03-20 21:12:53+0100, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > On 2026-03-06 17:45:36+0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026, at 17:39, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > On 2026-03-06 17:33:09+0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > >>  		  -g \
> > > > >>  		  "-I${inc_dir}" \
> > > > >> +		  "-Iusr/dummy-include" \
> > > > >
> > > > > What about also using -nostdinc?
> > > > 
> > > > I just removed it from my version after I found it made no difference,
> > > > and I wanted to keep the changes shorter. I agree it's slightly cleaner.
> > > 
> > > Ack, your choice.
> > > 
> > > > > I have a similar (unfinished) patch flying around which also
> > > > > uses usr/dummy-include from the different kernel versions
> > > > > to avoid mismatches in case something gets removed there.
> > > > > Not sure if it is worth it.
> > > > 
> > > > Agreed, I certainly don't mind having your version either if
> > > > anyone cares enough. I suppose it would add a very small build time
> > > > overhead for the extra copy, but if it does help catch bugs it
> > > > would be worth the time.
> > > 
> > > It is less about catching bugs, those will already have been caught by
> > > the header tests before. But if something is removed from the dummy
> > > headers because it became unused, the old UAPI headers won't build
> > > anymore against the new dummy-headers.
> 
> > Shall I wait some more days for a possible modified patch 3/3?
> > Otherwise I'd like to apply the series to kbuild-next-unstable.  
> 
> It is a somewhat theoretical issue and if it arises at some point we can
> still fix it up. So this shouldn't block the patches.
> 
> For the series:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
> 
> 
> Thomas

ok, thanks!

-- 
Nicolas