On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:13:43PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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> Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
