On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:24:56PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > >Shouldn't we add a: > > > > if (val & (BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180))) > > return -EINVAL; > > > >To ensure userspace doesn't send garbage in the upper bits so we can > >reuse them down the road? > > > But we are checking if more than one bit is set, we return EINVAL. > So we only care for one rotation angle being sent from user. > Shouldn't that suffice? Nop. If given (1 << 50) we'd still pass the test but with an invalid (reserved) value. I didn't spot the generic drm_property_change_is_valid() (Ville's answer), so it should be handled for us by the DRM core already. All is fine. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
