From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55591)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1bKnA0-0002v8-RM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 09:46:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1bKn9x-0007tG-R5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 09:46:40 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57413)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1bKn9x-0007t5-L1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 09:46:37 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1466777957-5126-3-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<1467268211-11451-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<874m8baqoh.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
	<874m8aan6o.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<871t3dtqh6.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<87k2h1ac0z.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 15:46:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87k2h1ac0z.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com> (Sascha Silbe's message of
	"Mon, 04 Jul 2016 13:16:44 +0200")
Message-ID: <87inwig9qd.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] fixup! tests: New make target
 check-source
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: Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com

Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Dear Markus,
>
> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hmm, this demonstrates some of our headers may only be included when
>>> certain CONFIG_* are defined.
> [...]
>>> Regardless, we need to find the problemtatic headers.  Perhaps you can
>>> find a few more with "make -k check-source".
>>
>> I think I tracked them down.  Not too bad, just a dozen or so.  Now I
>> have to make up my mind whether I prefer to document their configuration
>> requirements with comments or with ifdefs.
>
> FWIW, I'd prefer a solution that allows successfully running "make
> check-source" even on hosts where not all optional dependencies are
> installed. It would be useful as a sanity check before sending
> patches. If "make check-source" doesn't work on the developers primary
> machine because they cannot install all the latest experimental
> dependencies, fewer submitters will use it.

Agree.