On ma, 2017-02-20 at 10:00 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Tomasz Lis wrote:
> >
> > The recently introduced patch changed behavior of masks when
> > the bit number is negative. Instead of no bits set, the new way
> > makes all bits set. Problematic patch:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Tomasz Lis wrote:
> The recently introduced patch changed behavior of masks when
> the bit number is negative. Instead of no bits set, the new way
> makes all bits set. Problematic patch:
> drm/i915: Avoid BIT(max) - 1 and use GENMASK(max - 1, 0)
For
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:17:45AM +0100, Tomasz Lis wrote:
> The recently introduced patch changed behavior of masks when
> the bit number is negative. Instead of no bits set, the new way
> makes all bits set. Problematic patch:
> drm/i915: Avoid BIT(max) - 1 and use GENMASK(max - 1, 0)
>
>
The recently introduced patch changed behavior of masks when
the bit number is negative. Instead of no bits set, the new way
makes all bits set. Problematic patch:
drm/i915: Avoid BIT(max) - 1 and use GENMASK(max - 1, 0)
This behaviour was not considered when making changes, and boundary
value