Re: [Qemu-devel] Headers without multiple inclusion guards

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:12:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:

> We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards.  Some are
> clearly intentional, some look accidental.  Too many for me to find out
> by examining each of them, so I'm asking their maintainers.
> 
> Why do I ask?  I'd like to mark the intentional ones and fix the
> accidental ones, so they don't flunk "make check-headers" from "[RFC v4
> 0/7] Baby steps towards saner headers" just because they lack multiple
> inclusion guards.
> 
> Just in case: what's a multiple inclusion guard?  It's
> 
>     #ifndef UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H
>     #define UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H
>     ...
>     #endif
> 
> with nothing but comments outside the conditional, so that the header
> can safely be included more than once.
> 
> I append the alphabetical list of headers without multiple inclusion
> guards (as reported by scripts/clean-header-guards -nv), followed by the
> same list sorted into maintainer buckets.  If you're cc'ed, please find
> your bucket(s), and tell me which headers intentionally lack guards.

(...)

> S390
> M: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
> M: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> target/s390x/helper.h

Intentional, as all target/*/helper.h.

(...)

> UNMAINTAINED
> ------------

(...)

> tests/migration/s390x/a-b-bios.h

Autogenerated from a-b-bios.c, not intended to be included except in
the migration test.

[Side note: I probably should include tests/migration/s390x/ to the
s390 section in MAINTAINERS so it is no longer 'unmaintained'...]