Apologies for anything I've said so far that has been harsh. I'd like this discussion to be civil. I'm not sure if Simon is still on board with a patch given his thumbs up to Erik's comment on the Mesa merge request (which I responded to), but I would also like to know why adding another header file is problematic. I would prefer to keep the definitions deduplicated and make the code robust even for edge cases unless there's a good reason not to. Avoiding an extra file doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me, but I also don't have to maintain codebases that rely on these headers, so maybe there's something I'm overlooking. Thanks, James On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 6:21 AM Simon Ser <contact@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3rd, 2021 at 3:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As said before, there are multiple ways to handle this without > > introducing yet another UAPI header. I don't see why you're dismissing > > all of them, can you elaborate? > > Because I hate it when I have to adjust my compiler flags because of > some third-party header. > > Can you explain what were the past issues with introducing a new > header? _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
