Re: [PATCH 1/8] vfio: Add header guards and includes to drivers/vfio/vfio.h

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] vfio: Add header guards and includes to drivers/vfio/vfio.h
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:24:40 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yw+naMPLU9gD0oTR@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220831120231.320081f0.alex.williamson@redhat.com>

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:02:31PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:

> > The criteria I like to use is if the header is able to compile
> > stand-alone.
> 
> Is this stream of consciousness or is there some tooling for this? ;)

In my case I'm using clangd https://clangd.llvm.org/ in the editor,
which checks header files for self-consistency.

But there is also https://include-what-you-use.org/ (though I have
never tried it)

But the above wack of text is just the normal compiler invocation of
vfio_main.c with main.c replaced by the header.

> > > btw while they are moved here the inclusions in vfio_main.c are
> > > not removed in patch8.  
> > 
> > ?  I'm not sure I understand this
> 
> I think Kevin is asking why these includes were not also removed from
> vfio_main.c when adding them to vfio.h.  Thanks,

Oh, I am actually unclear what is policy/preference/consensus in that
area.

I know a strong camp is to avoid implicit includes, so the duplicated
includes are welcomed. include-what-you-use for instance is that
philosophy.

Do you have a preference?

Jason