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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 2785EC28CC0 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:56:36 +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 F2920208CB for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:56:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F2920208CB 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]:53929 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVy8B-0008Fw-9k for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:56:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36490) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVy79-0007hl-RI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:55:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVy77-0006Qm-RZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:55:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54406) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVy77-0006PO-M4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:55:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97847EE566; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:55:22 +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 6354117AC2; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E6B601138648; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:55:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Anthony PERARD References: <87lfyqla7r.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20190529095823.GC2126@perard.uk.xensource.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:55:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190529095823.GC2126@perard.uk.xensource.com> (Anthony PERARD's message of "Wed, 29 May 2019 10:58:23 +0100") Message-ID: <87blzlfmiv.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 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 29 May 2019 12:55:27 +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] Headers without multiple inclusion guards 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: Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Durrant Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Anthony PERARD writes: > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Just in case: what's a multiple inclusion guard? It's >> >> #ifndef UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H >> #define UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H >> ... >> #endif >> >> with nothing but comments outside the conditional, so that the header >> can safely be included more than once. > > >> Guest CPU Cores (Xen): >> ---------------------- >> >> X86 >> M: Stefano Stabellini >> M: Anthony Perard >> M: Paul Durrant >> include/hw/xen/io/ring.h > > That file does have a guard, it's __XEN_PUBLIC_IO_RING_H__ > > Do you (or the checker) want it to be changed to XEN_PUBLIC_IO_RING_H ? Yes. I'll post a patch. >> virtio-9p >> M: Greg Kurz >> hw/9pfs/xen-9pfs.h > > Stefano, is the missing inclusion guard was intentional? Otherwise, I > can send a patch for it. Sending a patch is okay, but telling me "unintential, please fix it along with the other ones" is also okay :) Thanks!