Alexander Stohr wrote:
possibly i am thinking a bit more practical: - the number of pages
should never go negative, so why do we need the sign? - there is no
reason why the number of pages should get limited to i.e. 2 GB
instead of 4 GB on 32 bit machines.
I think Phil *meant*
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
- the number of pages should never go negative, so why do we need the sign?
- there is no reason why the number of pages should get limited to i.e.
2 GB instead of 4 GB on 32 bit machines.
But we're talking page count, not byte
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
Suggestion:
typedef unsigned intelcount_t;
or
#define elcount_t unsigned int
Ack. Don't do that.
-- Gareth
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
But we're talking page count, not byte count. So signed vs unsigned is
something like having 8 vs 16 TERRABYTES addressable.
Personally, I dont think that should be an issue :-)
well estimated. ;-)
consider such a coding:
size_t size_of_one_member, total_size_in_bytes;
int
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:46:23PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
[phil brown wrote]
So allowing signed int for pagecounts, means you can allow -1
as a flag for uninitialized or something.
a special value of zero is sufficient here.
well, yeah, pagecount=0 is fine for an error flag :-)
Hi folks,
could someone take 1 minute and run through agpgart.h,
just taking a look at the structs for the ioctls,
and add comments for which page fields are ADDRESSES, vs which
page fields are INDEXES/page-counts. My head's beginning to spin.
I'll narrow it down for ya:
typedef struct
