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

[Peter Maydell]

On 11 January 2016 at 15:19, Daniel P. Berrange <address@hidden> 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.)

>> 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.

thanks
-- PMM