Re: [PATCH v4 04/19] bsd-user: Clean up includes

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:54:30PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 14:42, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, why didn't you move sys/resource.h and other such files
> > > to os-dep.h? I'm struggling to understand the rules around what
> > > is or isn't included where?
> > 
> > The rough rule of thumb is that if some OS needs a compatibility
> > fixup or workaround for a system header (eg not every mmap.h
> > defines MAP_ANONYMOUS; on Windows unistd.h has to come before
> > time.h) then we put that header include and the compat workaround
> > into osdep.h. This avoids "only fails on obscure platform" issues
> > where somebody puts a header include into some specific .c file
> > but not the compat workaround, and it works on the Linux host
> > that most people develop and test on and we only find the
> > problem later.
> > 
> > There's also no doubt some includes there for historical
> > reasons, and some which really are "everybody needs these"
> > convenience ones. But we should probably not add new
> > includes to osdep.h unless they fall into the "working around
> > system header issues" bucket.
> > 
> > thanks
> > -- PMM
> 
> 
> BTW maybe we should teach checkpatch about that rule:
> if a header is in osdep do not include it directly.

To be more precise, make checkpatch run clean-includes somehow?
Or just make CI run clean-includes on the tree and verify result
is empty?

> -- 
> MST