Re: [XEN PATCH 6/7] xen/x86: remove stale comment

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-12-04 17:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.12.2023 17:26, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 2023-12-01 17:57, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-30 17:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 29.11.2023 16:24, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > > The comment referred to the declaration for do_mca, which
> > > > > now is part of hypercall-defs.h, therefore the comment is stale.
> > > > If the comments were stale, the #include-s should also be able to
> > > > disappear?
> > > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hypercall.h
> > > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hypercall.h
> > > > > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
> > > > >  #include <xen/types.h>
> > > > >  #include <public/physdev.h>
> > > > >  #include <public/event_channel.h>
> > > > > -#include <public/arch-x86/xen-mca.h> /* for do_mca */
> > > > > +#include <public/arch-x86/xen-mca.h>
> > > > >  #include <asm/paging.h>
> > > > Here otoh I'm not even sure this public header (or the others) is
> > > > (are)
> > > > really needed.
> > > I confirm this. It build even without this header.
> > It does appear to be needed after all. I did two differential pipeline
> > runs, and some jobs fail to compile when I remove the header (e.g.,
> > [1]). Looking trough the build log, it's not entirely clear what is 
> > the
> > relationship, but it seems related to some use of this struct defined 
> > in
> > xen-mca.h:
> >
> > typedef struct xen_mc xen_mc_t;
> > DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mc_t);
> That do_mca()'s parameter type, so in a way the comment is still 
> correct
> then.
>
> Jan
Yeah, this patch can be dropped.

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)