On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:43:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Now that we've constrained the clipped source rectangle such that it can't have negative dimensions doing the same for the dst rectangle seems appropriate. Should at least result in the clipped src and dst rectangles being a bit more consistent with each other.
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard benjamin.gaignard@st.com Cc: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
selftests for this stuff? Looks like the prime example, write testcase proving code is busted, fix it, everyone celebrate?
Yeah, seems like a good idea. Though I'll have to figure out if it's actually broken or not ;)
I *think* the only problem is that the clip can result in a visible source rectangle when this happens. The dst rectangle will still be correctly invisible so hopefully not a big deal. But I guess we might as well fix it, and I can do a selftest which makes sure both src and dst come out invisible.
Hmm. Ouch. There's seems to be a div by zero lurking in there if dst_w/h == 0. I wonder why nothing has hit that.
Definitely real. I'll fix it and toss in a selftest.