Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Matthew W. S. Bell
matt...@bells23.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 08:49 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
No, its designed as is. We can't change it now as its ABI. We make sure
we only use 32-bit handles anyways.
The thing is unsigned int
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 08:49 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
No, its designed as is. We can't change it now as its ABI. We make sure
we only use 32-bit handles anyways.
OK, is this documented anywhere, as I'd like to pull some of that into a
comment? (It appears, on a casual glance, that this type is
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 08:49 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
No, its designed as is. We can't change it now as its ABI. We make sure
we only use 32-bit handles anyways.
Sorry, the comment about the ABI is, of course, nonsense, as the
assumption is implicit in the kernel ABI.
Matthew
signature.asc
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Matthew W. S. Bell
matt...@bells23.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 08:49 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
No, its designed as is. We can't change it now as its ABI. We make sure
we only use 32-bit handles anyways.
The thing is unsigned int is correct for the
From d457b05faabde1a51b8e4b8f6fc13af9f07809f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
drm_handle_t appears to be assigned values from void*. As such unsigned
int is certainly not the same size on 64-bit. Convert to uintptr_t in
all cases as it is defined for this purpose.
I fear this patch changes ABI, but I
drm_handle_t appears to be assigned values from void*. As such unsigned
int is certainly not the same size on 64-bit. Convert to uintptr_t in
all cases as it is defined for this purpose.
No, its designed as is. We can't change it now as its ABI. We make sure
we only use 32-bit handles
