On 30.08.2017 20:55, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 30.08.2017 19:05, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> All but two, namely exec.c and dump.c, include exec/exec-all.h via >> cpu.h only. as these files already include cpu.h, let's just drop the >> additional include. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> --- >> dump.c | 1 - >> exec.c | 1 - >> 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/dump.c b/dump.c >> index d9090a24cc..c00094475c 100644 >> --- a/dump.c >> +++ b/dump.c >> @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ >> #include "qemu/cutils.h" >> #include "elf.h" >> #include "cpu.h" >> -#include "exec/cpu-all.h" > > That's cpu-all.h, not exec-all.h ... > >> #include "exec/hwaddr.h" >> #include "monitor/monitor.h" >> #include "sysemu/kvm.h" >> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c >> index d20c34ca83..8d8b6a0769 100644 >> --- a/exec.c >> +++ b/exec.c >> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ >> >> #include "qemu/cutils.h" >> #include "cpu.h" >> -#include "exec/exec-all.h" >> #include "exec/target_page.h" >> #include "tcg.h" >> #include "hw/qdev-core.h" > > ... and if I do a grep for exec-all.h in the cpu.h files, I hardly get > any matches. => Your patch description sounds wrong ... I guess you only > wanted to handle cpu-all.h here? > > Thomas >
exec/cpu-all.h it is. Fixed the subject+description. I'd really love to know what my brain was doing while composing that message. It will remain a mystery. -- Thanks, David
