On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:13 AM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards. Some are > clearly intentional, some look accidental. Too many for me to find out > by examining each of them, so I'm asking their maintainers. > > Why do I ask? I'd like to mark the intentional ones and fix the > accidental ones, so they don't flunk "make check-headers" from "[RFC v4 > 0/7] Baby steps towards saner headers" just because they lack multiple > inclusion guards. >
Sorry for the delay I have been on holidays. I think the ARM ones have all been covered by Peter, here is some info on the RISC-V includes. .... > linux-user/riscv/sockbits.h > linux-user/riscv/syscall_nr.h > linux-user/riscv/target_syscall.h > linux-user/riscv/termbits.h I'm not sure here, it looks like all targets have the same guards, so just follow what the others do here. .... > target/riscv/cpu_bits.h > target/riscv/cpu_user.h These should have guards > target/riscv/helper.h Intentional > target/riscv/instmap.h I think this should have a guard. Alistair
