[PATCH] drm: Fix drm.h uapi header for GNU/kFreeBSD

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:10:52AM +0100, James Clarke wrote:
> On 6 May 2019, at 09:16, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 09:43:14PM +0100, James Clarke wrote:
> >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 18:41, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> writes:
> >>> 
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 03:04:18PM +0000, James Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> Like GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD's sys/types.h does not define the uintX_t
> >>>>> types, which differs from the BSDs' headers. Thus we should include
> >>>>> stdint.h to ensure we have all the required integer types.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: James Clarke <jrtc27 at jrtc27.com>
> >>>> 
> >>>> Would be good to get an ack from some other *bsd that this is still all
> >>>> fine. lgtm otherwise.
> >>>> -Daniel
> >>> 
> >>> I think there was some need for inttypes.h instead of stdint like a
> >>> decade ago when I was working on BSDs, but that was already almost
> >>> irrelevant then.
> >> 
> >> Hi, just following up on this; is there still the need for an ACK?
> > 
> > Yeah and ack without a "decades ago" qualifier would be nice.
> > -Daniel
> 
> I have the following from Brooks Davis, FreeBSD contributor and core team
> member:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> With respect to the thread:
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2019-May/216784.html
> 
> I can't see any reason why you'd want to include inttypes.h instead of
> stdint.h unless you want the intmax_t using types/functions it defines.
> Your patch is certainly safe on FreeBSD.
> 
> At a glance it looks like the same is true (with somewhat different
> implementation) on OpenBSD.
> 
> - -- Brooks
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJc0LwmAAoJEKzQXbSebgfArrIIAItDHcDG5d9QcMnbQibk+d6w
> EW1OnvijeVZ6PCNcbEEldZEHXsRFOe7zE8sYKSPegDnYve1y8jVyh2YyJtDI7eWL
> hD2dSY3DGOKatEfd3CxoG2vpN8zv3giDS35hXIqMRF1iD0/jYixTYLcfZgQ7U6Ml
> 34gxe3q6v30ZoWK5SHCDCac4z0OYjfKTpwZnyNkag/DW5CqqOTQOao6AJOLcosqJ
> orIUZVl0nvk0dIGzK09ef+BWOyVA5h6f+V3F3x/cK3E2qiTRxVLhhLVaEgdBDp5C
> hPXH33q/GK54m5jWVaZ5BtpKSA1Et6HjF48+wyJCADQh//DxIWGEAa1fmvKryQw=
> =oJBq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> Hopefully the signature survives; I converted it from PGP/MIME and it seems to
> verify locally.

It's not about the signature, we don't care, it's about the email
addresses, so in case there's ever a change in the future we'll have
people to contact.

Can you pls resend that patch with those acks (including mail address)
added? Needs permission of the people involved ofc (which is usually
implied for public mailing lists, but this seems like a private mail).

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch