On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:59:04 -0400, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> From: Matt Turner <[email protected]> >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:57:15 -0400 >> >> >> >> diff --git a/hw/dmx/dmxpict.c b/hw/dmx/dmxpict.c >> >> index 072e3a6..51616bb 100644 >> >> --- a/hw/dmx/dmxpict.c >> >> +++ b/hw/dmx/dmxpict.c >> >> @@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ static int dmxProcRenderSetPictureFilter(ClientPtr >> >> client) >> >> >> >> if (pPictPriv->pict) { >> >> filter = (char *)(stuff + 1); >> >> - params = (XFixed *)(filter + ((stuff->nbytes + 3) & ~3)); >> >> + params = (XFixed *)(filter + pad_to_pow_two(stuff->nbytes, 4)); >> > >> > Sorry, but to me this isn't an improvement. I probably spend to much >> > time on kernel hacking, but the origional is immediately obvious to >> > me, whereas the new line makes me think you're trying to align to a >> > 16-byte boundary. >> >> Hmm, yes, I see what you're saying. I changed the name to try to make >> it explicitly obvious that 'alignment' must be a power of two, but I >> see it is actually a little confusing. >> >> What would you suggest for the name of the function? > > ALIGN, like the kernel.
I prefer ALIGN as well. Alex _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
