Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Introduce rust: In xdiff

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:03 -0700

Ezekiel Newren <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > I wanted feedback on:
>> >   * Cleaning up Rust type name collisions
>> >   * People don't like it, so I'll drop that
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion on this. If it creates issues I personally
>> don't mind fixing it.
>
> Junio doesn't like it, so I'm not going to do it.

It was not "I do not line u16 as a typename when a perfectly well
established uint16_t is available", though.

It was more about asking to explain the reason behind insisting to
use u(8|16|32|64) types in C code.  Perhaps there is a compelling
reason to do so that I was missing.

I know that the kernel has used these types for a long time, but
that way predates their more recent flirt with Rust.  If your answer
was "the kernel uses them", then I'd want that answer to cover a few
additional questions, like 

 - Have they benefitted from their use of u(8|16|32|64) when they
   started working with Rust and if so how?  

 - Would we be expected to reap the same benefit if we used these
   types?

for example.

Thanks.