Linux kernel staging patches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Muhammad Bilal <meatuni001@gmail.com>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
	Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: sm750fb: fix mono image source stride mismatch in lynxfb_ops_imageblit()
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:57:32 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <altqLCKzCdGLaMzl@stanley.mountain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260718103103.18082-1-meatuni001@gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 03:31:03PM +0500, Muhammad Bilal wrote:
> sm750_hw_imageblit() advances its monochrome source pointer by
> src_delta per scanline, and computes the correct rounded-up stride
> internally as:
> 
> 	bytes_per_scan = (width + start_bit + 7) / 8;
> 
> Its only caller, lynxfb_ops_imageblit(), instead passed src_delta as
> image->width >> 3. For widths not a multiple of 8 this under-counted
> the stride, so the source pointer fell further behind the real
> per-scanline layout on every line, corrupting the rendered image.
> 
> Rather than just fixing the caller's calculation, remove src_delta
> as a parameter entirely and have sm750_hw_imageblit() advance by the
> bytes_per_scan it already computes for itself. There has only ever
> been one caller, and that caller was passing an out-of-sync
> derivative of the same width/start_bit values sm750_hw_imageblit()
> already has, so keeping stride as a separate parameter served no
> purpose beyond letting the two calculations drift apart, which is
> exactly what happened here.
> 
> Fixes: 81dee67e215b2 ("staging: sm750fb: add sm750 to staging")
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Bilal <meatuni001@gmail.com>
> ---

There is supposed to be a little note here:
---
v2: Added a Fixes tag.

https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

Obviously there is an inconsistency between rounding up and down
but without testing it's less clear which one is correct...

regards,
dan carpenter


      reply	other threads:[~2026-07-18 11:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-18 10:31 [PATCH v2] staging: sm750fb: fix mono image source stride mismatch in lynxfb_ops_imageblit() Muhammad Bilal
2026-07-18 11:57 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=altqLCKzCdGLaMzl@stanley.mountain \
    --to=error27@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=meatuni001@gmail.com \
    --cc=sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com \
    --cc=teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox