[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] memaccess: reduce include dependencies
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09.03.2020 16:51, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:49 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mem_access.h > >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mem_access.h > >> @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@ > >> #ifndef _ASM_ARM_MEM_ACCESS_H > >> #define _ASM_ARM_MEM_ACCESS_H > >> > >> +struct vm_event_st; > >> + > >> static inline > >> bool p2m_mem_access_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v, > >> - const vm_event_response_t *rsp) > >> + const struct vm_event_st *rsp) > >> { > >> /* Not supported on ARM. */ > >> return false; > >> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/mem_access.h > >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/mem_access.h > >> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ > >> #ifndef __ASM_X86_MEM_ACCESS_H__ > >> #define __ASM_X86_MEM_ACCESS_H__ > >> > >> +struct vm_event_st; > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in xen/mem_access.h instead > > of having to do it in both asm versions? Nothing directly includes > > asm/mem_access.h, all users include xen/mem_access.h > > If that's what you prefer - I can certainly do so. It'll look a > little odd then, as the forward declaration has to come ahead of > > #include <asm/mem_access.h> > > Just let me know if you really prefer it that way. Well, I find it ugly either way. I would prefer if it's forward declared just at one spot, with a comment explaining why it's needed/done that way. Thanks, Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |