On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:18:35PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:32:01PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 10:59:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 04:55:52PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > > > VBT version 196 increased the size of common_child_dev_config. The > > > > parser > > > > code assumed that the size of this structure would not change. > > > > > > > > The modified code now copies the amount needed based on the VBT version, > > > > and emits a debug message if the VBT version is unknown (too new); > > > > since the struct config block won't shrink in newer versions it should > > > > be harmless to copy the maximum known size in such cases, so that's > > > > what we do, but emitting the warning is probably sensible anyway. > > > > > > > > In the longer run it might make sense to modify the parser code to > > > > use a version/feature mapping, rather than hardcoding things like this, > > > > but for now the variants are fairly managable. > > > > > > > > v2: Stricter size checks > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weineh...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Since Chris mentioned that this should fix a regression I applied it to > > > drm-intel-fixes. > > > > Great! Will you merge the other patch in the series to the nightly > > build? > > I only merged this fast-tracked because it fixes a regression. For the > other patch normal review rules still apply (i.e. I won't do it).
I wasn't expecting fast tracking. I'd missed the fact that patch 2/2 wasn't reviewed by anyone yet; I've done so now. Kind regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
