> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/virtgpu_drm.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
>
> > +
> > +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,
>
> > +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.
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.
Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20150910/a10aadb7/attachment.html>
