From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/6] x86/hvm: don't include asm/spinlock.h Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:15:38 +0100 Message-ID: <552BC17A.8040604@citrix.com> References: <1428675597-28465-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <1428675597-28465-2-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <5527EB4B.6050309@citrix.com> <552BC10D.8010702@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YheDH-0000PF-24 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:15:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <552BC10D.8010702@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: David Vrabel , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Cc: Keir Fraser , Tim Deegan , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 13/04/15 14:13, David Vrabel wrote: > On 10/04/15 16:24, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 10/04/15 15:19, David Vrabel wrote: >>> asm/spinlock.h should not be included directly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel >> s/asm/xen/g instead of a straight delete? >> >> Otherwise you are relying on pulling in xen/spinlock.h implicitly. > None of these files declare a spinlock so getting the header implicitly > is correct, IMO. In which case, good riddance. Acked-by: Andrew Cooper