From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C049BC07542 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 05:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931422070D for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 05:11:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 931422070D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40142 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hV7uy-0002dj-NW for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 01:11:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55439) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hV7u9-00028I-ST for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 01:10:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hV7u7-0005zo-VS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 01:10:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39394) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hV7u7-0005xr-7y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 01:10:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE7FC1306E4; Mon, 27 May 2019 05:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-117-250.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.250]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCB5A60C6B; Mon, 27 May 2019 05:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 488131138648; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:10:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Paolo Bonzini References: <20190523081538.2291-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20190523081538.2291-6-armbru@redhat.com> <87ef4peyg5.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <14caabd5-34e3-260f-91e0-df93e8f1a02a@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 07:10:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <14caabd5-34e3-260f-91e0-df93e8f1a02a@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 24 May 2019 18:25:57 +0200") Message-ID: <8736l032k8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 27 May 2019 05:10:33 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v4 5/7] tests: New make target check-source X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 23/05/19 21:57, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> A large number of headers don't pass this test, by design or by >>>> accident. To keep things more manageable, exclude all headers outside >>>> include/ for now. >>> A lot of these, either in include/ or outside, are _meant_ to be >>> included many times. What about renaming those to .inc.h and >>> whitelisting them in the script? >> Yes, that would be nice. > > Another suggestion: are there headers that cannot even be included once > (due to dependencies)? Is it worth including a test for those even in > the first iteration? > > .inc.h files would skip that test too. I'm not sure I get what you mean. Most headers failing the test fail it in the first #include: they fail to conform to 2. Headers should normally include everything they need beyond osdep.h. The only way to fail in the second #include is a missing header guard. If it's missing intentionally, it's "_meant_ to be included many times", and you propose renaming to .inc.h. Else, easy fix. I think I'll make a list of headers that fail in the second #include, and try to sort them into "intentional" and "bug" buckets.