> > Thanks for helpping me verify this!! > > > > EMM, but I'm still not understanding how this approach distinguishes > > whether hw/core/cpu-common.c needs the header (include/exec/cpu-common.h) > > directly or just include/exec/memory.h needs that header? For the latter, > > the header needn't be included in .c file. > > Yes, you are right, it might not be necessary. > > For all other headers in your series I checked that no function / > definition is used in the source, but "exec/cpu-common.h" is too > big to do that manually.
Thanks! I checked manually as well... In the future I'll also think about if there's a more elegant way to do it. > I mostly skipped it because it is odd to > have cpu-common.c not including the header with the same name... Yes, I think the "cpu-common.c" is the related .c file of exec/cpu-common.h. And the related header of "hw/core/cpu-common.c" should be "hw/core/cpu.h". Could we rename "hw/core/cpu-common.c" to "hw/core/cpu.c"? Then the relationship could be clear. > Also, in another series I split / reworked "exec/cpu-common.h" and > IIRC a part of it will be included here. Bah, I'll stop writing > and take your patch unmodified. Many thanks! Regards, Zhao
