Comment # 40
on bug 61182
from D. Hugh Redelmeier
Thanks, Neils, for the patch in comment #38. Warning: the following comments are made with no understanding of X code. "writting" should be "writing" What is 0x000fffff? I would find the code clearer if this constant were given a name (RADEON_MAX_DMA?). Why code nfill = (size / 0x000fffff) + !!(size % 0x000fffff); instead of the generally more efficient nfill = (size+ 0x000fffff - 1) / 0x000fffff; My guess: to avoid overflow. But if that is the case, then nfill should be uint64_t (like size), not just unsigned (which might be only 32 bits). Any case where the second statement might have an overflow problem would also be a problem with nfill being only unsigned 32. If you know size is not 0, this is even better: nfill = ((size - 1) / 0x000fffff) + 1; If size can be 0, it is probably worth an early-out test to avoid bothering the GPU anyway: if (size == 0) return 0; I find code is easier to read if the scope of a variable is minimized. So I'd make the assignment to fsize also its declaration. Have you created a patch to get these functions called in place of the currently broken code?
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
