Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] minor (formatting) fixes

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.06.16 at 21:19, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/16/2016 5:24 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.06.16 at 16:06, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c
>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>   
>>>   #include <xen/vm_event.h>
>>>   #include <asm/hvm/event.h>
>>> +#include <asm/paging.h>
>>>   #include <asm/monitor.h>
>>>   #include <asm/vm_event.h>
>>>   #include <public/vm_event.h>
>>> diff --git a/xen/common/monitor.c b/xen/common/monitor.c
>>> index d950a7c..b30857a 100644
>>> --- a/xen/common/monitor.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/monitor.c
>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
>>>   #include <xen/monitor.h>
>>>   #include <xen/sched.h>
>>>   #include <xsm/xsm.h>
>>> -#include <public/domctl.h>
>>>   #include <asm/monitor.h>
>>>   #include <asm/vm_event.h>
>> These two adjustments clearly don't fit title / description. I certainly
>> don't mind unnecessary inclusions to be dropped, but the addition of
>> one clearly needs explanation (after all thing build fine without it).
> 
> Sorry, that was done out of reflex, should have stated the reasoning.
> Generally, if:
> - event.c includes event.h
> - event.c needs paging.h
> - event.h -doesn't need- paging.h
> then I prefer to include paging.h in event.c, not in event.h (include 
> strictly -where- needed).
> Also since xen/paging.h included asm/paging.h and event.c only needs the 
> asm/paging.h part, I also changed xen/paging.h inclusion -> asm/paging.h 
> inclusion (include strictly -what's- needed).
> But I can revert that if you want me to (not that important and these 
> little things are better done with automatic tools anyway), or should I 
> leave the change and update the commit message?

Well, I'd leave the ultimate decision to the maintainers, but I'd say
this doesn't belong in a patch dealing with formatting issues. I.e.
I'm fine with the cleanup, but either under a different title (and
with at least an abbreviated version of what you said above), or
in a separate patch. Considering that you appear to do the same
in later patches, perhaps consolidating all the #include adjustments
into one patch would a good idea?

>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/vm_event.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/vm_event.h
>>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void vm_event_monitor_guest_request(void);
>>>   
>>>   #endif /* __VM_EVENT_H__ */
>>>   
>>> -
>>>   /*
>>>    * Local variables:
>>>    * mode: C
>> Why don't you remove the other stray blank line at once?
> 
> What stray line? Shouldn't there be -one- blank line between the #endif 
> and the local vars block?
> Looking @ other files that rule seems to hold...

Oh, you're right. I thought I had frequently seen it the other way
around (and it would seem more logical to me), but I must have been
misremembering.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel