> From: Eric Anholt <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:29:06 -0700 > > 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.
*The* kernel? Anyway, ALIGN is probably a poor choice since on OpenBSD (I didn't check other BSD's) have a one-argument ALIGN macro in <sys/param.h> that aligns to the machines natural word size instead of some caller-specified alignment. However, something with "align" in the name is probably a good idea.
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
