Re: [XEN PATCH v8 30/47] build: rework "headers*.chk" prerequisite in include/

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 25.11.2021 14:39, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> @@ -81,10 +81,21 @@ ifeq ($(XEN_TARGET_ARCH),$(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH))
>  
>  all: $(obj)/headers.chk $(obj)/headers99.chk $(obj)/headers++.chk
>  
> -PUBLIC_HEADERS := $(filter-out $(src)/public/arch-% 
> $(src)/public/dom0_ops.h, $(wildcard $(src)/public/*.h $(src)/public/*/*.h) 
> $(public-y))
> +public-hdrs-path := $(srcdir)/public
>  
> -PUBLIC_C99_HEADERS := $(src)/public/io/9pfs.h $(src)/public/io/pvcalls.h
> -PUBLIC_ANSI_HEADERS := $(filter-out $(src)/public/%ctl.h $(src)/public/xsm/% 
> $(src)/public/%hvm/save.h $(PUBLIC_C99_HEADERS), $(PUBLIC_HEADERS))
> +public-list-headers = $(wildcard $1/*.h $1/*/*.h)
> +public-filter-headers = $(filter-out $(addprefix 
> $(public-hdrs-path)/,$($1-filter)), $($1))
> +
> +public-c99-headers := io/9pfs.h io/pvcalls.h
> +public-headers := $(call public-list-headers,$(public-hdrs-path)) $(public-y)
> +public-ansi-headers := $(public-headers)

Personally I find it odd for public-c99-headers to be first in this group.
Further down, in the upper-case counterparts, you have it at the end (still
in context below).

> +public-headers-filter := dom0_ops.h arch-%

What is the criteria to be listed here vs ...

> +public-ansi-headers-filter := %ctl.h xsm/% %hvm/save.h 
> $(public-headers-filter) $(public-c99-headers)

... outside of that macro's expansion here? There's no other use of the
macro that I can spot, so its presence is puzzling me.

> +
> +PUBLIC_HEADERS := $(call public-filter-headers,public-headers)
> +PUBLIC_ANSI_HEADERS := $(call public-filter-headers,public-ansi-headers)
> +PUBLIC_C99_HEADERS := $(addprefix $(public-hdrs-path)/, 
> $(public-c99-headers))

While benign right now, wouldn't it be more consistent if
public-filter-headers was also applied in this last case? Or is
there a reason not to?

Jan