On 09/21/2016 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.09.16 at 17:34, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 09/21/2016 11:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 21.09.16 at 17:09, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/21/2016 07:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20.09.16 at 02:19, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/tools/libacpi/build.c
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/libacpi/build.c
>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>>>>  #include "ssdt_s4.h"
>>>>>>  #include "ssdt_tpm.h"
>>>>>>  #include "ssdt_pm.h"
>>>>>> +#include <xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h>
>>>>> ... I don't really see why this becomes necessary here. Please
>>>>> clarify.
>>>> xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h in included by hvmloader/util.h so we haven't
>>>> needed this include until now.
>>> But you're not removing any inclusion here. Does that addition
>>> perhaps belong elsewhere?
>> I suppose I can add it to libxl_x86_acpi.h (and remove from
>> libxl_x86_acpi.c) to be consistent with how it is included by util.h
> That doesn't answer my question (by "elsewhere" I meant
> another, earlier patch). By the time stuff got moved to tools/
> you can't possibly rely on util.h inclusion here anymore.

Patch 11 ("acpi/hvmloader: Include file/paths adjustments") may be a
better place to make this change.

I don't understand though why we can't rely on util.h after the move.
hvmloader will continue including it via
-DLIBACPI_STDUTILS=\"$(CURDIR)/util.h. At that point (and until this
patch) hvmloader is the only user of libacpi and including
hvm_info_table.h via util.h works fine (but, as I said in the previous
message, is not logical).


Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to