On pe, 2016-10-07 at 18:16 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:51:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > 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. Yes, if one is not paying attention to the maximum expected values. And looking back a few months, paying attention is what our watermark code needs badly. By quick look, some types are random and there're quite a few casts. Try "git grep max_wm" for example. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
