Re: [PATCH] Add missing includes to headers

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:49:13 -0500
Peter Foley <pefoley@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 4:33 AM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
>
> Ideally glibc would add the necessary annotations to their bits/ headers  
> to make include-cleaner do the right thing,
> but I'm not sure whether they'd want to do that in the first place.
> And even if they did, it would take a while for a "fixed" version to roll
> out.
> Let alone other libc implementations like musl.
> 
> I suppose another track would be to add special-case logic to clang-tidy to
> not recommend bits headers,
> but I don't know if the LLVM maintainers would like that either.

Right, none of the options above look like reasonable short-term goals.

What I was suggesting was to sprinkle the code with beauties such as:

	/* NOLINTNEXTLINE(misc-include-cleaner) */

before each "offending" include line... assuming it works, and
assuming we need perhaps 20-30 of them. But if it's a lot more, then
that's not a reasonable option either.

-- 
Stefano