On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:44:17AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> 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)?

Well.. really we want to break struct ctx up so it's not globals by
another name, but that's not news.

> 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...
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson