On 10 September 2015 at 11:32, Dave Airlie [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/uapi/drm/virtgpu_drm.h

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@

quoted

+
+struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box {
+       uint32_t x, y, z;
+       uint32_t w, h, d;
+};
+

There was a similar case (multiple variables declared on a single
line) in drm core that caused confusion and we broke the 32bit compat.
I thought I mention it - not advocating for/against the above declaration.

probably should put some newlines alright,

quoted

quoted

quoted

+struct drm_virtgpu_3d_transfer_to_host {
+       uint32_t bo_handle;
+       struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box box;
+       uint32_t level;
+       uint32_t offset;
+};
+
+struct drm_virtgpu_3d_transfer_from_host {
+       uint32_t bo_handle;
+       struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box box;
+       uint32_t level;
+       uint32_t offset;
+};
+

Afaics these seems to be used by the ioctls. If so the current
declarations are not 32bit compat safe. Things will also go badly if
you consider expanding struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box in the distant
future. A u32 pad after bo_handle and a 'pointer' to struct

I'm curious what you think we can add to a 3d box.

None from the top of my head I'm afraid. But I'm wondering if one
cannot keep things flexible considering the cost/downside of the
approach is minimal.

So this one is fine, no need to align it either I don't think, though I
should confirm that.

Maybe for safety we can pull the other uint32_t above the box.

pahole did complain on my system, but please do - was low on caffeine
so I could have botched something.

Regards
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel