On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Ben Avison <[email protected]> wrote: > Some back story... > > First there was this patch: > > http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/49937/ > > Back last October, Søren had this to say about it: > >> A concern I have here is that code might access pixels outside the >> image that have weight 0. Ie., in the bilinear case, some code might >> attempt to read the pixel at bits[-1] and then multiply it with 0. But >> we can't assume that bits[-1] is readable. >> >> If I remember correctly, the +pixman_fixed_e * 8 stuff was intended to >> handle this case. >> >> I think it would be worthwhile to have a test that uses fence_malloc >> for the source buffer and the matrix mentioned in the commit. In fact, >> the fence_malloc() testing could benefit from being extended in >> various ways: >> >> - having fence pages both before and after the image >> - having fence pages in the 'stride' part of the image > > Towards this goal, the following patches were posted to the list - and they > seem to have escaped Patchwork's notice: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-May/003644.html > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-May/003645.html > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-May/003646.html > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-May/003678.html > > (note that there were a few minor outstanding points on the first three). > This series relies upon the test program implemented by those patches to > prove its correctness, so it would be helpful if they could be finished off > and committed. >
So these patches didn't escape patchwork. As part of the cleanup, I moved them to "Changes requested" status: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/48887/ http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/48888/ http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/48889/ http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/50516/ You can read the email thread of each patch there and I understood that Pekka will fix / have already fixed the comments, but I didn't see he sent the fixed patches to the mailing list. Pekka, I think you can just commit the fixed versions, or if you want, you can post them and I can also help review them. Oded > If you look in detail at the patches in this series, you'll see that there's > an outstanding change for a single routine - the one and only scanline fetch > iter in pixman-ssse3.c, which handles bilinear scaled a8r8g8b8 source > images. This could probably be fixed using either of the two methods I used > in the other patches, but pixman-fast-path.c is the most elegant. My problem > is that I don't know SSSE3 (or any other x86 for that matter) so it would > represent a big learning curve for me for the sake of just this one > function. > > Is anyone able to help out? I've got a load of other scaling-related goodies > lined up, but it doesn't make much sense to post them while all these > fundamentals are still outstanding. > > Ben Avison (7): > Refactor calculation of cover flags > More accurate FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP_NEAREST > Split FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP_BILINEAR flag > More accurate FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP_BILINEAR > armv7/mips/sse2: Fix bounds violations in bilinear cover scaled fast > paths > pixman-fast-path: Fix bounds violations in bilinear cover fetcher > test: Make image size calculation match COVER_CLIP definition again > > pixman/pixman-fast-path.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++-------- > pixman/pixman-inlines.h | 63 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > pixman/pixman-private.h | 1 + > pixman/pixman-ssse3.c | 2 +- > pixman/pixman.c | 37 +++++++++++++------------- > test/affine-bench.c | 11 +++----- > 6 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.5.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Pixman mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
