Re: [PATCH] Add missing includes to headers

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:08:07 -0500
Peter Foley <pefoley@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 12:35 PM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > By the way, we already run clang-tidy tests ('make clang-tidy') as part
> > of our tests (test/build/static_checkers.sh).
> >
> > Would it be just a matter of enabling the misc-include-cleaner in the
> > list of tests we give clang-tidy from the Makefile:
> >
> >   https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/misc/include-cleaner.html
> >
> > ? I haven't tried.
> 
> It appears so, a local change to pass -checks=misc-include-cleaner to
> clang-tidy resulted in a ton of errors like:
> /usr/local/google/home/pefoley/passt/vu_common.c:277:2: error: no header
> providing "iov_from_buf" is directly included
>
> [...]

Hmm, "nice". I guess we should find out if it's reasonable / doable to
"fix" all those.

> > > If you want, I can fold the two "include fixing" commits together and
> > > re-send.  
> >
> > Yes, thanks, that would be appreciated. I would first try to settle on
> > a convenient way to keep Blaze/Bazel happy for the future, though.
> 
> As I mentioned earlies, Bazel appears to be happy withough the include
> fixes, it's just Google's internal Blaze varient that has some kind of
> stricter checking that falls over.

Oh, I didn't understand, I thought Bazel reported a non-empty subset of
the failures from Blaze.

> I can send the change out for supporting the Bazel build, but I think using
> misc-include-cleaner would be a better plan.

Yeah, I think so too... as long as it's not hundreds of additional
warnings / fixes we need to take care of, it's definitely less effort
and should be less clunky too.

-- 
Stefano