Re: [qemu-s390x] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/67] s390x: drop an unused include

[Thomas Huth]

On 08.05.2018 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:38:03 +0200
> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200
>>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
>>>>> we just need a struct name, let's add a forward
>>>>> declaration instead of an include.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h
>>>>> index f9db243..6e65150 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h
>>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #include "hw/sysbus.h"
>>>>>  #include "hw/qdev.h"
>>>>> -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState;    
>>>>
>>>> IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble
>>>> with older versions of GCC.  
>>>
>>> Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other
>>> architectures do it in their cpu.h.  
>>
>> See:
>>
>> commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603
>> Author: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>> Date:   Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200
>>
>>     target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h
>>     
>>     This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and
>>     prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>>     Message-Id: <address@hidden>
>>     Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>     Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
>>
>>  Thomas
> 
> Gargh, this is all very confusing...

If you'd ask me, I'd say we should get rid of the typedefs and do it the
Linux kernel way and enforce using "struct xyz" everywhere, then you
also do not have this problem with typedefs.h anymore ... but well, so
far it seems as I'm still part of a minority with this opinion here.

 Thomas