Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/fb: Proper support of boundary conditions in bitmasks.

2017-02-21 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
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:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/fb: Proper support of boundary conditions in bitmasks.

2017-02-20 Thread Jani Nikula
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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/fb: Proper support of boundary conditions in bitmasks.

2017-02-17 Thread Arkadiusz Hiler
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) > >

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/fb: Proper support of boundary conditions in bitmasks.

2017-02-17 Thread Tomasz Lis
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