Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:22:42 +0100 (IST) | From | Dave Airlie <> | Subject | Re: [mm patch] drm, minor fixes |
| |
>> >> are you sure the callers of these don't wrap it inside a DRM_ERR() >> macro ? > I changed the values when: > - I've checked what seemed right, getting back to the system call. > drm_ioctl(), through a call to func(). > That's the case for: > - the EFAULT value in i915_emit_box > - two EINVAL values in drm_setversion > - the return value wasn't used. That was the case for > drm_set_busid return values, I felt having returned values negative > from the start was more consistent. > > Is there a particular change that looked suspicious to you?
These are all actual bugs , however I doubt any of the codepaths are causing a major problem, a lot of those code paths are for older X systems or not very likely hit, I'll pull the fixes into the DRM tree now... the i915 one is a worry I must give out the TG/Intel folks :-)
Thanks, Dave.
-- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |