The header is unneeded - there are no uses of BUG() or WARN() in these
cpufreq files.  Remove the include.  It is still include transitively
from xen/lib.h.

Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>
---
 xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 -
 xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c       | 1 -
 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index eedc7c737d..56816b1aee 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@
 #include <xen/sched.h>
 #include <xen/timer.h>
 #include <xen/xmalloc.h>
-#include <asm/bug.h>
 #include <asm/msr.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 #include <asm/processor.h>
diff --git a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 6b2e81f1b0..9470eb7230 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -39,7 +39,6 @@
 #include <xen/guest_access.h>
 #include <xen/domain.h>
 #include <xen/cpu.h>
-#include <asm/bug.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 #include <asm/processor.h>
 
-- 
2.39.2

On 13.03.2023 18:51, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> The header is unneeded - there are no uses of BUG() or WARN() in these
> cpufreq files.  Remove the include.  It is still include transitively
> from xen/lib.h.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>

This, in a way, is a review comment on Oleksii's "xen: change <asm/bug.h>
to <xen/bug.h>". We can certainly put in the change as you have it (for
him to drop the touching of the two files), but I'd find it more logical
to continue to be part of his change, just with the xen/bug.h replacement
includes dropped. Thoughts, either of you?

Things would be different if it was clear that the change here was dropping
all unnecessary includes from the cpufreq files. But that doesn't look to
be the case, as I think ...

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,6 @@
>  #include <xen/sched.h>
>  #include <xen/timer.h>
>  #include <xen/xmalloc.h>
> -#include <asm/bug.h>
>  #include <asm/msr.h>
>  #include <asm/io.h>

... at least this one should be unnecessary as well, even more so ...

> --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@
>  #include <xen/guest_access.h>
>  #include <xen/domain.h>
>  #include <xen/cpu.h>
> -#include <asm/bug.h>
>  #include <asm/io.h>

... here.

Jan

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 6:19 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 13.03.2023 18:51, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > The header is unneeded - there are no uses of BUG() or WARN() in these
> > cpufreq files.  Remove the include.  It is still include transitively
> > from xen/lib.h.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>
>
> This, in a way, is a review comment on Oleksii's "xen: change <asm/bug.h>
> to <xen/bug.h>". We can certainly put in the change as you have it (for
> him to drop the touching of the two files), but I'd find it more logical
> to continue to be part of his change, just with the xen/bug.h replacement
> includes dropped. Thoughts, either of you?

Yes, Oleskii's work brought it to my attention.  I submitted it this
way to follow the "one change per commit" rule of thumb, seeing it as
distinct from, though related to, the asm -> xen rename.  If you
prefer to have it rolled into Oleksii's change, that is fine by me.

> Things would be different if it was clear that the change here was dropping
> all unnecessary includes from the cpufreq files. But that doesn't look to
> be the case, as I think ...

Correct, I did not inspect other includes.

Regards,
Jason

On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:14 -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 6:19 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On 13.03.2023 18:51, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > The header is unneeded - there are no uses of BUG() or WARN() in
> > > these
> > > cpufreq files.  Remove the include.  It is still include
> > > transitively
> > > from xen/lib.h.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>
> > 
> > This, in a way, is a review comment on Oleksii's "xen: change
> > <asm/bug.h>
> > to <xen/bug.h>". We can certainly put in the change as you have it
> > (for
> > him to drop the touching of the two files), but I'd find it more
> > logical
> > to continue to be part of his change, just with the xen/bug.h
> > replacement
> > includes dropped. Thoughts, either of you?
> 
> Yes, Oleskii's work brought it to my attention.  I submitted it this
> way to follow the "one change per commit" rule of thumb, seeing it as
> distinct from, though related to, the asm -> xen rename.  If you
> prefer to have it rolled into Oleksii's change, that is fine by me.
I think we can do it as a part of my changes to not produce additional
commits with the similar meaning.
> 
> > Things would be different if it was clear that the change here was
> > dropping
> > all unnecessary includes from the cpufreq files. But that doesn't
> > look to
> > be the case, as I think ...
> 
> Correct, I did not inspect other includes.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
~ Oleksii