[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] intel/blorp: Fix a couple asserts around image copy rectangles

[Iago Toral]

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 22:53 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> With dealing with rectangles in compressed images, you can have a
> width or
> height that isn't a multiple of the corresponding compression block
> dimension but only if that edge of your rectangle is on the edge of
> the
> image.  When we call convert_to_single_slice, it creates an 2-D image
> and a
> set of tile offsets into that image.  When detecting the right-edge
> and
> bottom-edge cases, we weren't including the tile offsets so the
> assert
> would misfire.  This caused crashes in a few UE4 demos
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> Reported-by: "Eero Tamminen" <eero.t.tamminen at intel.com>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98431
> Cc: "13.0" <mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org>
> ---
>  src/intel/blorp/blorp_blit.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/intel/blorp/blorp_blit.c
> b/src/intel/blorp/blorp_blit.c
> index 0c3ee72..9357a72 100644
> --- a/src/intel/blorp/blorp_blit.c
> +++ b/src/intel/blorp/blorp_blit.c
> @@ -1761,10 +1761,14 @@ surf_convert_to_uncompressed(const struct
> isl_device *isl_dev,
>     surf_convert_to_single_slice(isl_dev, info);
>  
>     if (width || height) {
> +#ifndef NDEBUG
> +      uint32_t right_edge_px = info->tile_x_sa + *x + *width;
> +      uint32_t bottom_edge_px = info->tile_y_sa + *y + *height;
>        assert(*width % fmtl->bw == 0 ||
> -             *x + *width == info->surf.logical_level0_px.width);
> +             right_edge_px == info->surf.logical_level0_px.width);
>        assert(*height % fmtl->bh == 0 ||
> -             *y + *height == info->surf.logical_level0_px.height);
> +             bottom_edge_px == info->surf.logical_level0_px.height);
> +#endif

Makes sense to me.

>        *width = DIV_ROUND_UP(*width, fmtl->bw);
>        *height = DIV_ROUND_UP(*height, fmtl->bh);

In that case, we end up rounding up here. I suppose that is handled
properly going forward from here, right? I ask because the previous
asserts suggested that this might not have been considered during the
implementation (although the DIV_ROUND_UP() here suggests that it was).

Assuming this is all fine, this patch is:
Reviewed-by: Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral at igalia.com>

>     }