Re: [PATCH] Add missing includes to headers

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:37:54 -0500
Peter Foley <pefoley@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 3:47 PM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > By the way, I won't have a chance to try this before a couple of days,
> > if needed, but another thought: if we end up adding/changing hundreds
> > of include lines as a result, maybe the cleanup David mentioned would
> > actually be in scope at that point, even from a mere perspective of
> > "noise" we would add, or effort you're spending anyway (let's make it
> > fully worth it I'd say).
> 
> I tried running clang-include-cleaner and then massaging it to not include
> c++ only headers or stuff from bits/
> That wound up with:
>  64 files changed, 349 insertions(+), 189 deletions(-)
> 
> Unfortunatly include-cleaner isn't smart enough to handle things like
> #include <sys/socket.h> instead of <bits/sockaddr.h>
> So absent adding pragma annotations to glibc headers, I'm not sure a clean
> clang-include-cleaner check is possible.

We could always add suppressions for clang-tidy checks, we already have
a bunch, see NOLINTNEXTLINE directives in the code.

> That diff is
> https://github.com/pefoley2/passt/commit/6ae0bcb2bbdc10384346dda547db60f80c8a9676
> .
> I can send it as a proper patch as well if you're interested, but it's a
> lot of churn and I'm not sure how to prevent back-sliding...

Ouch... yeah.

Let me have another look tomorrow (Tuesday) but I think it only makes
sense if we use that as a chance to entirely switch to approach #2
David was mentioning (minus perhaps some exceptions), including all
the related clean-ups.

I'm totally for it by the way, if you can take care of it. Otherwise
I'd recommend sticking to a more conservative approach for the moment
being.

-- 
Stefano