On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 07:01:58PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > We store cursor_x/y as int16_t internally, but the user provided > coordinates are int32_t. Clamp the coordinates so that they don't > overflow the int16_t. Since the cursor is only 64x64 in size, the > clamping can't cause any visual changes. EINVAL? That would appear to be a nuisance as we don't already tell the user off for being silly with the cursor position. Bump the internal range? Future proof against tomorrow's 64k super-ultra-high definition monitors? The valid range for cursor is currently (-64, 8192) and we don't compute relative cursor position, so we will be fine for a few years yet with int16_t. > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
