On 22.03.2023 11:09, Oleksii wrote: > On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 17:21 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 16/03/2023 14:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> <xen/lib.h> will be used in the patch "xen/riscv: introduce >>> decode_cause() stuff" and requires <asm/bug.h> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in V5: >>> * the patch was introduced in the current patch series (V5) >>> --- >>> xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h >>> b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000000..e8b1e40823 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h >>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright (C) 2012 Regents of the University of California >>> + * Copyright (C) 2021-2023 Vates >> >> I am a bit puzzled with those copyright given the header is empty. >> >> But is there any reason this can't be folded in #6 or part of #6 >> moved >> forward? > Initially it was folded in #6 but in this case a build will be failed > after introduction of #5 as <asm/bug.h> is needed for <xen/lib.h>
But what about the other option Julien mentioned, moving ahead the later "filling" of asm/bug.h, so it wouldn't be introduced empty and then (almost immediately) touched again to actually populate it? Jan
