From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] passt.h: Include netinet/if_ether.h before struct ctx
 declaration
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 09:44:17 +0200
Message-ID: <20221007094417.44e4fbfd@elisabeth>
In-Reply-To: <Yz/F4vfxsb2sn/J3@yekko>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4643232751343317286=="

--===============4643232751343317286==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 17:23:30 +1100
David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 02:47:37AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > This saves some hassle when including passt.h, as we need ETH_ALEN
> > there.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com>  
> 
> Hrm.  So I had the impression that passt was using the convention that
> it's the top level files responsibility to include all the
> dependencies for a header before including the header, rather than
> having headers include other headers they need.  Was I mistaken?  I'm
> ok with either model, they each have their advantages, but I find
> sticking to one or the other is generally better than a mix of both.

That was my original idea, but it's a bit of a disaster, because it
turns out we need <netinet/if_ether.h> and a few others pretty much
everywhere, even though the file at hand will never see an Ethernet
header. :(

Does this indicate that it's time to move struct ctx out of passt.h
(and similarly with other structs here and there)?

Or that we should switch to the other way around? I don't really have
an answer.

If you have some ideas for a possible guideline/policy, I'd be happy to
refactor includes based on that...

-- 
Stefano


--===============4643232751343317286==--