From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756736AbcHVVUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:20:38 -0400 Received: from husky.sibernet.com ([192.135.76.19]:65436 "EHLO sibernet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756702AbcHVVUf (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:20:35 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 460 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:20:35 EDT Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT) From: randyf@sibernet.com To: Emil Velikov cc: Rob Clark , Mikko Rapeli , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ML dri-devel Subject: Re: [RFC] Using C99 stdint vs kernel __uX types in kernel drmUAPI (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h: use __u32 and __u64 from ") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (SOC 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Sibernet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Sibernet-MailScanner-ID: u7MLC0U3023167 X-Sibernet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Sibernet-MailScanner-From: randyf@sibernet.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Emil Velikov wrote: > Although last time around people leaned towards the __uX types, if we > have a consensus amongst drm (kernel) developers about using stdint > ones everything should be fine. > We just need a handful of acks from the different maintainers. > My opinion (as a non-Linux driver maintainer) is to use the stdint variants. They are (or at least should be) supported by all OS's and compilers without any special modifications. That said, it really isn't that hard for me to wrap the __uX types either. ---- Randy