Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Bump object bookkeeping to u64 from size_t

2016-10-18 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/10/2016 09:00, Chris Wilson wrote: Internally we allow for using more objects than a single process can allocate, i.e. we allow for a 64bit GPU address space even on a 32bit system. Using size_t may oveerflow. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson ---

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Bump object bookkeeping to u64 from size_t

2016-10-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:48:17PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ma, 2016-10-17 at 09:00 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Internally we allow for using more objects than a single process can > > allocate, i.e. we allow for a 64bit GPU address space even on a 32bit > > system. Using size_t may

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Bump object bookkeeping to u64 from size_t

2016-10-17 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
On ma, 2016-10-17 at 09:00 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Internally we allow for using more objects than a single process can > allocate, i.e. we allow for a 64bit GPU address space even on a 32bit > system. Using size_t may oveerflow. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Bump object bookkeeping to u64 from size_t

2016-10-17 Thread Chris Wilson
Internally we allow for using more objects than a single process can allocate, i.e. we allow for a 64bit GPU address space even on a 32bit system. Using size_t may oveerflow. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-