From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44559)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1Whieb-0006pM-U2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 12:55:48 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1WhieV-0002Bt-Kl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 12:55:41 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10796)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1WhieV-0002Bb-BA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 12:55:35 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:55:27 -0400
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140506125527.3de22819@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5368F7F8.3090706@redhat.com>
References: <20140502135218.31383.90270.stgit@fimbulvetr.bsc.es>
	<20140506130740.GA17717@irqsave.net>
	<20140506092725.4c195cbd@redhat.com> <5368F7F8.3090706@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 0/4] qapi: Allow modularization of QAPI
	schema files
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudA==?= Canet <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TGx1w61z?= Vilanova <vilanova@ac.upc.edu>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, 06 May 2014 08:55:52 -0600
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Eventually, we might want to have if/defs and whatnot. But having a master
> > file seems a reasonable first step to me. I actually thought this was the
> > intention. Unless I got it wrong, of course.
> 
> Ifdefs may be a bit much.  If we add them, then we can worry about
> explicit include guards, the same as the C preprocessor.  But for now,
> I'd be perfectly fine with a followup patch that includes a file's
> contents exactly once, no matter how many times it is included (that is,
> act as if include guards were implicitly present, since we lack
> conditionals, so include files are currently idempotent).

OK. Does it make sense to merge the current series without that
modification?