At 03/03/2011 06:27 AM, Stefan Weil Write:
> Am 02.03.2011 23:01, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>> Am 02.03.2011 19:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 2 March 2011 18:36, Stefan Weil wrote:
No. I dont't think that the third parameter of bitmap_clear is
ok like that. See my patch for the correct va
On 2 March 2011 22:01, Stefan Weil wrote:
> The part missing in my patch is correct handling of another
> rounding effect:
>
> VNC_DIRTY_WORDS is exact for 32 bit long values (and the
> "old" code which used uint32_t until some weeks ago), where
> VNC_DIRTY_WORDS = 2560/16/32 = 5.
>
> For 64 bit v
Am 02.03.2011 23:01, schrieb Stefan Weil:
Am 02.03.2011 19:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
On 2 March 2011 18:36, Stefan Weil wrote:
No. I dont't think that the third parameter of bitmap_clear is
ok like that. See my patch for the correct value.
Wen's patch:
+ const size_t width = ds_get_width(v
Am 02.03.2011 19:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
On 2 March 2011 18:36, Stefan Weil wrote:
No. I dont't think that the third parameter of bitmap_clear is
ok like that. See my patch for the correct value.
Wen's patch:
+ const size_t width = ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16;
[...]
-bitmap_set(width_ma
On 2 March 2011 18:36, Stefan Weil wrote:
> No. I dont't think that the third parameter of bitmap_clear is
> ok like that. See my patch for the correct value.
Wen's patch:
+const size_t width = ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16;
[...]
- bitmap_set(width_mask, 0, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16));
-
