Re: [PATCH] Add missing includes to headers

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:43:13 +1100
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 01:08:07PM -0500, Peter Foley 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
> > [misc-include-cleaner,-warnings-as-errors]
> >   277 |         iov_from_buf(in_sg, elem_cnt, VNET_HLEN, buf, total);
> >       |         ^
> > /usr/local/google/home/pefoley/passt/vu_common.c:301:15: error: no header
> > providing "ETH_ZLEN" is directly included
> > [misc-include-cleaner,-warnings-as-errors]
> >     9 |         if (l2len >= ETH_ZLEN)
> >       |                      ^
> > /usr/local/google/home/pefoley/passt/vu_common.c:304:2: error: no header
> > providing "memset" is directly included
> > [misc-include-cleaner,-warnings-as-errors]
> >     9 |         memset((char *)iov->iov_base + iov->iov_len, 0, ETH_ZLEN -
> > l2len);  
> 
> Unfortunately, I suspect this isn't going to work out.  It may do some
> of the checks we want here, but unfortunately it makes some very silly
> warnings in relation to the standard library, which is why we disabled
> it in the first place.  See commit
> 3be9e0010ea7329ae0f3707f67ac4cf0bac13d54

Ouch, right, I had forgotten about that.

> I guess we should retry and see if the latest LLVM is better about
> this, though.

I guess:

  https://github.com/pefoley2/passt/commit/6ae0bcb2bbdc10384346dda547db60f80c8a9676

makes that mostly pass with a recent LLVM version? If we need a dozen
of suppressions (maybe even 20-30?) I would say it's sustainable, but
more than that and it will start looking messy.

-- 
Stefano