On 28.09.2022 15:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:45:13PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 28.09.2022 12:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:01:26AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.09.2022 17:39, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/iocap.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iocap.h >>>>> @@ -7,13 +7,43 @@ >>>>> #ifndef __XEN_IOCAP_H__ >>>>> #define __XEN_IOCAP_H__ >>>>> >>>>> +#include <xen/sched.h> >>>>> #include <xen/rangeset.h> >>>>> #include <asm/iocap.h> >>>>> +#include <asm/p2m.h> >>>> >>>> That's heavy dependencies you're adding. I wonder if the functions >>>> wouldn't better become out-of-line ones (but see also below). > > I would expect most callers to already have those dependencies TBH, > and in any case definitions there not used would be dropped anyway. > > Or are you worried about the newly added dependencies causing a > circular dependency issue in the future?
Yes, but maybe for no real reason: Now that I look, I see that no other header file includes */iocap.h (except, of course, xen/iocap.h including asm/iocap.h). Jan
