Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] clean-includes script to add osdep.h to everything

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On 11 January 2016 at 15:19, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 04:23:42PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> We've had some discussion previously (on list and IRC) about adding an
>>> include of "qemu/osdep.h" to everything. The basic idea is that every
>>> .c file should include "qemu/osdep.h" as its first include; then every
>>> other header (and the .c file itself) can rely on the facilities that
>>> osdep.h provides.
>>>
>>> This patchset is mostly here to get comment and review on the script
>>> I've written to do the job of automatically updating the source files.
>
> In the absence of any other comments from anybody I guess we can
> go ahead and commit this series... (the osdep.h patch it depends
> on has been committed already).
>
>>> Patches 2 and 3 are examples of its output, produced via
>>>  scripts/clean-includes --git target-arm target-arm/*.c
>>>  scripts/clean-includes --git hw/arm hw/arm/*.c
>>>
>>> NB: the script assumes my patch to make osdep.h include
>>> glib-compat.h has already been applied:
>>>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/552828/
>>>
>>> Once we're happy with the set of transformations it produces the
>>> next question is how we want to apply it to the tree. The good
>>> news is that the changes to the .c files are idempotent and don't
>>> depend on each other, so we could send things via different
>>> submaintainer trees. Or we could have a single patchseries which we
>>> apply all at once on the theory that this minimises the pain overall.
>>
>> I think either approach would work as long as we don't let it drag
>> out too long in sub-maintainer trees. ie aim to get every file
>> cleaned & merged before 2.6 rc.
>
> I guess I'll start off with some series for the obviously maintained
> areas of the tree and then we can mop up the rest later.
>
> (At some point a script which identifies files which haven't been
> cleaned up yet would be handy.)

Do what you think is best.  I'd go for a single patch fixing up the
complete tree.

>>> A question I had about including osdep.h everywhere:
>>> are there any files in the tree where we *can't* include it?
>>> (Obvious possible candidates would be standalone test programs
>>> and the guest-agent code.)
>>
>> I think even guest-agent code & tests could include it in order to
>> get clean includes, even if they don't use any of the QEMU functions
>> defined in it. So I think its simplest to just say every .c file must
>> use it and leave it at that.
>
> OK, let's assume that works.

If it doesn't, we need a header with just configuration results that is
included in every .c file first.  Just like config.h should be when
using autoconf.