On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:59:08PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:55:41PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:09:25PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 15/01/2021 12:59, Bruce Richardson: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:51:49AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > On 1/15/2021 11:10 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > > To verify that all DPDK headers are ok for inclusion directly in a C > > > > > > file, and are not missing any other pre-requisite headers, we can > > > > > > auto-generate for each header an empty C file that includes that > > > > > > header. > > > > > > Compiling these files will throw errors if any header has unmet > > > > > > dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > The list of headers to check is based of the "headers" value > > > > > > returned from > > > > > > each library's meson.build file. However, since not all headers are > > > > > > for > > > > > > direct inclusion, add a build variable "headers_no_chkincs" to list > > > > > > those > > > > > > headers and skip checking them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > * add maintainers entry > > > > > > * distribute exception list among meson.build files. > > > > > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 4 ++++ > > > > > > app/chkincs/gen_c_file_for_header.py | 12 ++++++++++ > > > > > > app/chkincs/main.c | 4 ++++ > > > > > > app/chkincs/meson.build | 28 > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > +1 to have this kind of tool to check, but it is not an application > > > > > like > > > > > others in the 'app' folder, what do you think placing it under > > > > > 'devtools' or > > > > > 'buildtools'? > > > > > > > > Couple of reasons why it's placed in app. > > > > > > > > 1. We previously had a "chkincs" app in DPDK which was kept in the app > > > > folder > > > > 2. It allows us to reuse the build infrastructure for building apps, > > > > rather > > > > than reduplicating it. > > > > 3. We don't have any compilable code currently in the devtools folder, > > > > and > > > > even in buildtools the pmdinfogen app is going to go away. > > > > > > > > That being said, none of those reasons are major issues that can't be > > > > worked around if the consensus is to move it. > > > > > > It could be easily in devtools if it was a script. > > > By the way, we already have devtools/check-includes.sh > > > If your solution is better, please remove this script. > > > > > I only discovered the script existed when doing the v2 of this patchset, > > since it showed up in some grep calls I did for exception cases. I'm not > > sure that either approach is necessarily better, it's just right now that > > the script is unused (and also unknown) which is why I did this cleanup > > work. > > > > Here is how I see the current comparison between two approaches: > > * Script as advantage in that it performs C++ checks as well as C > > * Script also allows passing arbitrary additional C flags into checks for > > higher levels of compliance, but I'm not sure this is something I like as > > I'd rather have standardisation here across all headers than have some > > headers more pedantic-friendly than others. > > * Main downside of the script is that is works off directories rather than > > a list of files, which means it requires maintenance of the exception > > list in the script, rather than in the build definition files where we > > call > > out the headers to be installed > > > > I'm honestly fine either way on this (as with directory where > > implementation lives) - main thing is to have the checking done, rather > > than ignored. > > > And I (obviously) forgot to mention that the existing script is not currently > integrated into existing build or build-test scripts. I haven't looked into > how complex this would be, but it would require investigation time.
I do plan to look into re-using the script and other options around this area - hopefully in RC2 timeframe. However, to make the patchset rework a little easier, perhaps the small header fixes could be picked up for ahead of any rework? /Bruce
