Re: [XEN PATCH 3/6] x86/vm_event: add missing include

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 14/08/2023 11:33, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 14/08/2023 09:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 11.08.2023 09:19, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > The missing header included by this patch provides declarations for
> > > the functions 
> > > 'vm_event_{fill_regs,set_registers,monitor_next_interrupt}'
> > > that are defined in the source file. This also resolves violations
> > > of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Fixes: adc75eba8b15 ("x86/vm_event: consolidate hvm_event_fill_regs 
> > > and p2m_vm_event_fill_regs")
> > > Fixes: 975efd3baa8d ("introduce VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_REGISTERS")
> > > Fixes: 9864841914c2 ("x86/vm_event: add support for 
> > > VM_EVENT_REASON_INTERRUPT")
> > It's hard to see how it can be three commit here. The oldest one is at
> > fault, I would say.
> Since the patch is concerned with more than one function then in a sense 
> I agree
> with you (the headers should have been included in the proper way the 
> first time around), but
> then more definitions have been added by adc75eba8b15 and 9864841914c2, 
> and these should have
> triggered a refactoring too. I can leave just 975efd3baa8d in the Fixes 
> if the preferred way is to list just the first problematic commit 
> (perhaps with a little explanation after --- ).
To be honest, I don't exactly see the value of using Fixes tag for those 
patches. I agree they are technically issues, but they are unlikely 
going to be backported.
So if it were me, I would just drop all the Fixes tags for missing 
includes unless there is an actual bug associated
with them (e.g. a caller was miscalling the function because the
prototype was incorrect).

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall