On 17.08.2017 15:07, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:06:10 +0200 > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 17.08.2017 14:55, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 17.08.2017 14:35, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 17.08.2017 13:40, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>> On 08/17/2017 06:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> [...] >>>>>> feat-src = $(SRC_PATH)/target/$(TARGET_BASE_ARCH)/ >>>>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.h b/target/s390x/cpu.h >>>>>> index 74d5b35..aeb730c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.h >>>>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.h >>>>>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ >>>>>> #include "exec/cpu-all.h" >>>>>> #include "fpu/softfloat.h" >>>>>> +#include "kvm_s390x.h" >>>> >>>> Do we still need that? cpu.h should theoretically be independent from >>>> kvm now, shouldn't it? And for the .c files, it's likely better to >>>> include kvm_s390x.h directly there if they require it. >>> >>> It should work if: >>> >>> a) we include "sysemu/kvm.h" in hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c >>> b) we include "target/s390x/kvm_s390x.h" in hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c >>> c) we include "kvm_s390x.h" in "internal.h" >>> d) we drop the "KVMState" parameter from kvm_s390_get_memslot_count() >>> (separate patch) >> >> Ok, that's rather a lot of changes already. Maybe that's rather >> something for a later patch instead, so I'm also fine if you keep in >> #include "kvm_s390x.h" in cpu.h here. > > Yup, let's defer it. It's not like that is the last series that will > ever go in. >
Sorry guys, already creating patches :) -- Thanks, David
