On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:56:13PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Claudio, Eduardo. > > On 12/14/20 8:10 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote: > >> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > >> > >> since tcg_cpu_ops.h is only included in cpu.h, > >> and as a standalone header it is not really useful, > >> as tcg_cpu_ops.h starts requiring cpu.h defines, > >> enums, etc, as well as (later on in the series), > >> additional definitions coming from memattr.h. > >> > >> Therefore rename it to tcg_cpu_ops.h.inc, to warn > >> any potential user that this file is not a standalone > >> header, but rather a partition of cpu.h that is > >> included conditionally if CONFIG_TCG is true. > > > > What's the benefit of moving definitions to a separate file, if > > the new file is not a standalone header? > > Claudio, I haven't been following every respin. If you did that > change just to please me then the circular dependency remarked by > Richard, then if it simplify the series I'm OK if you have to > remove the includes. > > Eduardo, if you are happy with patches 1-8 (x86 specific), maybe > you can queue them already. The rest is more TCG generic and > will likely go via Richard/Paolo trees IMO.
Patches 01-06 are queued. Patches 07 and 08 need review. -- Eduardo
