On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:01:56AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:03:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Just the usual paranoia ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
> > index b15d720eda4c..a12d7e8a0ca0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
> > @@ -3322,6 +3322,23 @@ static int framebuffer_check(const struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 *r)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + for (; i < 4; i++) {
> > + if (r->handles[i]) {
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("buffer object handle for unused plane %d\n", i);
>
> Printing the invalid value is also useful. We tended to put user
> debugging messages as DRM_DEBUG(); would probably be useful to add
> DRM_DEBUG_USER() and clean up all the EINVAL reporting.
Generally I agree, but here I couldn't come up with a case where it would
be useful:
- Missing memset is just that.
- Memset is there, but userspace filled in too many buffers - the i it
prints should be enough.
-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
