On 19 August 2016 at 15:26, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 19.08.2016 um 15:50 schrieb Marek Olšák: >> >> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@xxxxxxx> >> >> This reverts commit 2ce9dde0d47f2f94ab25c73a30596a7328bcdf1f. >> >> See the comment in the code. Basically, don't do cleanups in this header. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@xxxxxxx> > > > I completely agree with you that this was a bad move, but I fear that we > will run into opposition with that. > Please check the facts before introducing RATHER ANNOYING AND HARD TO READ COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. Story time: I was dreaming of a day were we can stop installing these headers, thus making deprecation a bit easier process. Yet after failing to convince Dave and Daniel on a number of occasions I've accepted that those headers _are_ here to stay. And yes they _are_ the UAPI, even though no applications are meant to use them but the libdrm 'version'. Thus any changes to the libdrm ones should be a mirror of the ones here and libdrm should _not_ differ. But let's ignore all that and imagine that those headers are _not_ UAPI. That gives us even greater reason to _not_ use the uintx_t types but the kernel __uX ones. The series that did these changes had a fair few references why we want that. Yes, I can imagine that the situation isn't ideal, and/or not that clear. Then again a check with git log should have straightened things out. If not _please_ help us improve this (documentation and/or others). And last but not least, please share with up what inspired this - (build/runtime) regression, attempted sync with libdrm, other ? Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
