linux-kernel - Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH] drm/qxl: use qxl_num

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1902655248.48590444.1544100790071.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From:   Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@...hat.com>
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH] drm/qxl: use qxl_num_crtc directly

> 
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:59:25AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > 
> > > Just use qxl_num_crtc directly everywhere instead of using
> > > qdev->monitors_config->max_allowed.  Drops pointless indirection
> > > and also is less confusing.
> > > 
> > 
> > To me is MORE confusing, why comparing number of something with
> > another number? Previously code was comparing number of monitors
> > with number of monitors, not number of CRTs with number of
> > monitors.
> 
> Yes, spice/qxl and drm/kms use slightly different terminology.
> 
> drm crtc == qxl monitor.
> drm framebuffer == qxl surface.
> 
> You need to know that anyway when looking at the qxl ksm code.  We
> have function names like qxl_crtc_update_monitors_config().  I fail
> to see why that is a problem ...
> 
> cheers,
>   Gerd
> 
> 

I don't see any problem too but you are explaining to me
why your rationale "and also is less confusing" does not
stand.

Frediano