linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] msm/drm/dsi: Round up DSC hdisplay calculation

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: <d23c077b-99de-e8c8-d97f-1c1bcca85ef2@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 01:22:57 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
Cc:     Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] msm/drm/dsi: Round up DSC hdisplay calculation

On 23/05/2023 01:18, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-05-23 01:14:40, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 00:45, Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2023 1:44 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-22 13:30:20, Jessica Zhang wrote:
>>>>> Currently, when compression is enabled, hdisplay is reduced via integer
>>>>> division. This causes issues for modes where the original hdisplay is
>>>>> not a multiple of 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix this, use DIV_ROUND_UP to divide hdisplay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
>>>>
>>>> Nit: probably these should go in the opposite order.  And if they're
>>>> all supposed to be chronological, I think it is:
>>>>
>>>>       Suggested-by:
>>>>       Fixes:
>>>>       Signed-off-by:
>>>>       Reviewed-by:
>>>>
>>>> But unsure if that's a hard requirement, or even correct at all.
>>>
>>> Hi Marijn,
>>>
>>> I don't see any explicit documentation on the order of R-b tags. FWIW, I
>>> see in the git log that S-o-b always goes at the bottom of the commit
>>> message.
>>>
>>> I would prefer the S-o-b to always be at the bottom (as it helps me
>>> avoid duplicate S-o-b's when doing `git commit -s`), though I can flip
>>> the order of the R-b and suggested-by tags.
>>
>> I'd second Jessica here. Consider these tags as a history or a transcript:
>>
>> I would not vote on the particular order of the Suggested-by/Fixes
>> tags, I don't think that is important. These come first. Then the
>> patch goes through different cycles. of reviews, which gain
>> Reviewed-by tags.
>>
>> In the same way Link/Patchwork/whatever other tags are added in the
>> historical order.
>>
>> By having the submitter's S-o-b at the bottom, the submitter adds the
>> final signature under everything else being stated/recorded.
> 
> Correct, so the s-o-b can always be kept / moved back to the bottom on a
> resend, stating that they sign off on "all that was written previously"
> including picking up reviews.
> 
> However, for the rest of your reply about "history / transcript", you
> seem to agree exactly with my point of keeping (or rather, simply
> appending) these in chronological order?

Yes.

> 
> - Marijn
> 
>>
>> Of course, in a more complicated story, there might be other
>> developers taking part (Co-Developed-By + Signed-off-by), etc.
>>
>> Note: all described is just my perception and might differ from the
>> BCP regarding the tags.
> 
> <snip>

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry