On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:51:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 07/10/2016 14:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:34:12PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Convert to from signed to unsigned and from longs > > Ddi you check that we can't get negative values? Depending on how you do > > things that can be possible on gmch platforms on account of the > > watermarks being inverted. IIRC we might have places were negative > > values might be present in temporary results. > > I tried to be careful, but it is of course possible I've missed > something. Could you give me a more precise pointer on where exactly to > look? In this particular patch? I don't have specifics in mind right now. But in general I've become a bit wary of unsigned in my older days on account of integer promotions and arithmetic conversions. It's far too easy to end up with an unsigned value where signed was needed. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
