Re: [RFC 11/21] test: include headers directly
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> Sun, 2 Aug 2026 20:01:52 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.dpdk.dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 19:37:04 +0000 Marat Khalili <[email protected]> wrote: > > diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c > > index 3205afaa63..32389c803a 100644 > > --- a/app/test/test_bpf.c > > +++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ > > #include <rte_random.h> > > #include <rte_byteorder.h> > > #include <rte_errno.h> > > +#include <rte_ip.h> > > +#include <rte_udp.h> > > +#include <rte_tcp.h> > > > > #include "test.h" > > > > This file has another group of includes guarded by RTE_LIB_BPF several lines > below, with `#include <rte_ip.h>` already there. It also seems that the guard > is redundant since `meson.build` already declares same dependency. We probably > should avoid adding duplicates, and optionally also do a cleanup here. > > With test_pipeline_common.h I could not find what uses the newly added header. > Other changed files have guards against MSVC which are not redundant. If the > new includes were added under this guard I could probably ack the change as > harmless, but as is the opinion of other maintainers is needed. So maybe > splitting the commit per-file would accelerate the process. > > Obvious question is if we could have some general policy and tools. > Explicit includes are good, but whack-a-mole approach can only go so far. > Good point. There is a good existing tool 'iwyu' that does this. Will use that.