On 6 July 2018 at 12:54, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 27 April 2018 at 14:16, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 12 March 2018 at 09:14, Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Add support for cursor dmabufs. qemu has to render the cursor for
>>> that, so in case a cursor is present qemu allocates a new dmabuf, blits
>>> the scanout, blends in the pointer and passes on the new dmabuf to
>>> spice-server. Without cursor qemu continues to simply pass on the
>>> scanout dmabuf as-is.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>>> Message-id: 20180308090618.30147-4-kra...@redhat.com
>>> +static void qemu_spice_gl_cursor_position(DisplayChangeListener *dcl,
>>> + uint32_t pos_x, uint32_t pos_y)
>>> +{
>>> + SimpleSpiceDisplay *ssd = container_of(dcl, SimpleSpiceDisplay, dcl);
>>> +
>>> + ssd->ptr_x = pos_x;
>>> + ssd->ptr_y = pos_y;
>>
>> Is it safe to write to these fields of ssd without holding
>> ssd->lock ? Coverity thinks it might not be (CID 1390631) because
>> we do take the lock to update them in display_mouse_set().
>
> Ping for opinions on this coverity issue?
Ping^2 ?
thanks
-- PMM
