Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/8] drm/i915: Sanitize stolen memory size calculation

2017-04-27 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
On ke, 2017-04-26 at 18:27 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:40:11PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > On GEN8+ (not counting CHV) the calculation can in theory result in an > > incorrect sign extension with all upper bits set. In practice this is > > unlikely to happen since

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/8] drm/i915: Sanitize stolen memory size calculation

2017-04-26 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:40:11PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On GEN8+ (not counting CHV) the calculation can in theory result in an > incorrect sign extension with all upper bits set. In practice this is > unlikely to happen since it would require 4GB of stolen memory set > aside. For consistency

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/8] drm/i915: Sanitize stolen memory size calculation

2017-04-26 Thread Imre Deak
On GEN8+ (not counting CHV) the calculation can in theory result in an incorrect sign extension with all upper bits set. In practice this is unlikely to happen since it would require 4GB of stolen memory set aside. For consistency still prevent the sign extension explicitly everywhere.