android-tools: add patch to fix build against 6.0 kernel headers

[yu-re-ka]

Description of changes

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 22.11 Release Notes (or backporting 22.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[trofi]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 196146 run on x86_64-linux 1

2 packages built:

• agi
• android-tools

[trofi]

Is it an upstream patch? If not should it be forwarded there as well?

[primeos]

Is it an upstream patch? If not should it be forwarded there as well?

Agreed. If it's an upstream patch then fetchpatch is much preferred (AFAIK; and the source should definitely be documented in Nixpkgs). If this patch is from you then it should be sent upstream as well (and ideally it would even get merged so that we can use fetchpatch).

[vcunat]

Upstream merged a similar patch in the meantime: nmeum/android-tools#85

They're exactly the same, except they have additional diffs in usb_close() and register_device(). I'd expect their patch is more correct, but I haven't really reviewed either.

[yu-re-ka]

I wrote this patch with the help of a friend. I did not get around to submitting it upstream, but if they already have an equivalent patch submitted there that's great too.

They're exactly the same, except they have additional diffs in usb_close() and register_device().

You overlooked that my patch adds the allocation/free of heap-allocated child structs to the constructor/destructor of usb_handle. This is cleaner than what they are doing because it makes it impossible to accidentally delete the usb_handle without freeing the child structs too. But well, theirs will probably work too (except for leaking memory in some failure cases).

[vcunat]

Oh right, I did overlook that when diffing the diffs.

[yu-re-ka]

Please someone else update or create a new PR for importing the upstream patch. I can't focus on this currently.
Feel free to request review from me then.

[vcunat]

The upstream patch wouldn't apply as-is. Maybe it will after the update. Anyway, your patch should be OK and at least it fixes the build now. Apparently, many nixpkgs users were affected.