Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

[Brendan Higgins]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:39 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:04 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:48 PM Brendan Higgins
> > <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:55 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 9/8/21 3:24 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
[...]
> Alright, I incorporated all the above into a patchset that I think is
> ready to send out, but I had a couple of issues with the above
> suggestions:
>
> - I could not find a config which causes a stacksize warning for
> sdhci-of-aspeed.
> - test_scanf is not a KUnit test.
> - Linus already fixed the thunderbolt test by breaking up the test cases.
>
> I am going to send out patches for the thunderbolt test and for the
> sdhci-of-aspeed test for the sake of completeness, but I am not sure
> if we should merge those two. I'll let y'all decide on the patch
> review.

Just in case I missed any interested parties on this thread, I posted
my patches here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210917061104.2680133-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t

> I only based the thunderbolt and bitfield test fixes on actual patches
> from Arnd, but I think Arnd pretty much did all the work here so I am
> crediting him with a Co-developed-by on all the other patches, so
> Arnd: please follow up on the other patches with a signed-off-by,
> unless you would rather me credit you in some other way.
>
> > Sorry for failing to submit these as a proper patch. If you send a new version,
> > I think you need to make sure you cover all of the above, using whichever
> > change you like best.
>
> I am still going to try to get Linus' suggestion working since it
> actually solves the problem, but I would rather get the above
> suggested fix out there since it is quick and I know it works.