On 17.08.2017 15:10, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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 :) >
s/guys/folks/ ;) -- Thanks, David
