Re: [PATCH V5 14/22] arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 27.01.2021 10:54, Oleksandr wrote:
> 
> On 26.01.21 11:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> Hi Jan
> 
>> On 25.01.2021 20:08, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/dm.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/dm.h
>>> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
>>>   
>>>   #include <xen/sched.h>
>>>   
>>> +#include <public/hvm/dm_op.h>
>>> +
>>>   struct dmop_args {
>>>       domid_t domid;
>>>       unsigned int nr_bufs;
>> How come this becomes necessary at this point in the series, when
>> nothing else in this header changes, and nothing changes in the
>> public headers at all? Is it perhaps a .c file that needs the
>> #include instead? Headers shouldn't pull in other headers without
>> clear need - as indicated in reply to a prior version, we have
>> way too many bad examples (causing headaches in certain cases),
>> and we'd like to avoid gaining more.
> 
> Yes, I understand this and completely agree. I remember last discussion 
> on that, this is not forgotten. The only reason I made this (non 
> entirely correct) change is to make
> series compilable on Arm with IOREQ support enabled. If I considered 
> this change as a correct one I would make it from the very beginning (in 
> patch #9 which adds this common header)...
> I added remark to draw reviewer's attention on the fact that I got stuck 
> with resolving that, what I did wrong and how it should be done 
> properly. The problem is that I didn't manage to make it properly.
> 
> Of course, I tried to include it directly by dm.c, but this didn't help 
> much without violating "alphabetical order" rule. Details here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/e0bc7f80-974e-945d-4605-173bd05302af@xxxxxxxxx/
> 
> I would appreciate any input on that.

I'll try to reply there.

Jan