Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] memaccess: reduce include dependencies

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09.03.2020 16:51, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:49 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mem_access.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mem_access.h
> >> @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
> >>  #ifndef _ASM_ARM_MEM_ACCESS_H
> >>  #define _ASM_ARM_MEM_ACCESS_H
> >>
> >> +struct vm_event_st;
> >> +
> >>  static inline
> >>  bool p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v,
> >> -                                  const vm_event_response_t *rsp)
> >> +                                  const struct vm_event_st *rsp)
> >>  {
> >>      /* Not supported on ARM. */
> >>      return false;
> >> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/mem_access.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/mem_access.h
> >> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
> >>  #ifndef __ASM_X86_MEM_ACCESS_H__
> >>  #define __ASM_X86_MEM_ACCESS_H__
> >>
> >> +struct vm_event_st;
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in xen/mem_access.h instead
> > of having to do it in both asm versions? Nothing directly includes
> > asm/mem_access.h, all users include xen/mem_access.h
>
> If that's what you prefer - I can certainly do so. It'll look a
> little odd then, as the forward declaration has to come ahead of
>
> #include <asm/mem_access.h>
>
> Just let me know if you really prefer it that way.

Well, I find it ugly either way. I would prefer if it's forward
declared just at one spot, with a comment explaining why it's
needed/done that way.

Thanks,
Tamas

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel