[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-08-07 Thread Michel Dänzer
vimOn Mit, 2013-07-17 at 12:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > From: Michel D?nzer > > > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > > drm_cal

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-08-07 Thread Michel Dänzer
vimOn Mit, 2013-07-17 at 12:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > From: Michel Dänzer > > > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > > drm_cal

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-07-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > From: Michel D?nzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-07-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > From: Michel Dänzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-13 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > From: Michel D?nzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-13 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > From: Michel Dänzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Imre Deak
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 11:58 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > From: Michel D?nzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank events.

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > From: Michel D?nzer > > > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > > drm_calc_vbltimest

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Michel Dänzer
From: Michel D?nzer It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus timestamps for vblank events. Which in turn causes e.g. gnome-shell to hang after a DPMS off cycle

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > From: Michel D?nzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > From: Michel Dänzer > > > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > > drm_calc_vbltimest

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Imre Deak
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 11:58 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > From: Michel Dänzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank events.

Re: [PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > From: Michel Dänzer > > It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit > architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing > drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus > timestamps for vblank e

[PATCH] drm: Don't pass negative delta to ktime_sub_ns()

2013-06-12 Thread Michel Dänzer
From: Michel Dänzer It takes an unsigned value. This happens not to blow up on 64-bit architectures, but it does on 32-bit, causing drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() to calculate totally bogus timestamps for vblank events. Which in turn causes e.g. gnome-shell to hang after a DPMS off cycle