Re: rfc: C99 style of the uintN_t types

["Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Valeriy E. Ushakov 
<uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost> wrote:
> I think there's no pressing need to go to c99 types that would warrant
> a bulk conversion.  Also, iirc, some of that is 3rd party code, and we
> need to be careful not to introduce unnecessary diffs with the
> original.
> Current policy w.r.t. u_ types is to "fix them as you go", i.e. if you
> want to make changes to a file with u_ types, you might as well
> convert it to use c99 u types (in a separate commit).  That way the
> churn is minimized, and that the change is actually verified.
I put statistics. And I believe if I start to look deeply to the files
I'll find the style breakage inside separate files.

Therefore, question is why so many style breakages in the core kernel code?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko