From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755391AbZG0XeZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:34:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753695AbZG0XeY (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:34:24 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:45458 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751597AbZG0XeY (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:34:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:33:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Stefani Seibold Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbcon: rotate upside down crash Message-Id: <20090727163340.5009ff72.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1248463426.30437.12.camel@wall-e> References: <1248463426.30437.12.camel@wall-e> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (cc linux-fbdev-devel) (un-cc adaplas - he hasn't been heard from for over a year) On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:23:46 +0200 Stefani Seibold wrote: > Attached is a bug fix for the frame console. > > The current frame buffer console upside down functionality will crash > using a font which has not a width of multiple by 8. > > The following 1 liner will fix the rotate_ud() function, > > fbcon_rotate.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- linux-2.6.31-rc4/drivers/video/console/fbcon_rotate.h 2009-07-24 > 20:37:31.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6.31-rc4.orig/drivers/video/console/fbcon_rotate.h > 2009-06-10 05:05:27.000000000 +0200 > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ > width = (width + 7) & ~7; > > for (i = 0; i < height; i++) { > - for (j = 0; j < width - shift; j++) { > + for (j = 0; j < width; j++) { > if (pattern_test_bit(j, i, width, in)) > pattern_set_bit(width - (1 + j + shift), > height - (1 + i), > I suspect that the patch was reversed, and that you intended this: - for (j = 0; j < width; j++) { + for (j = 0; j < width - shift; j++) { yes? The patch was wordwrapped too - please fix the email client. If/when resending, please add to the changelog a bit of an explanation about the change - what was wrong with the old code and how does the new code fix it, thanks.