Comment 25 for bug 1795135

Jason, I'm sorry to hear that my patch makes another bug a bit worse. My patch consists of two parts, either one is sufficient to fix this bug here. Could you please maybe try which of its two parts cause that regression?

Taking a quick look at that other bug, you seem to be much more familiar with this topic and the intended behavior than I am. Either you or some other X.Org developer should take a closer look, I'm afraid I'm unable to further help, it would require much more time than I can voluntarily devote to this issue.

Both parts of my patch fix a "code smell", where the code was just fishy, didn't fit in with the rest of the picture. As I already mentioned, I had a guts feeling that I did not address the core issue, I mean why does that number become negative in the first place?

There must be levels of architectural complexity that I'm totally unaware of... But just looking at the overall picture: Handling the motion of a value within a certain interval causes problems, really?? Just sounds totally ridiculous.

While my patch makes your bug even somewhat worse, it at least fixes one of the two bugs, so still it's not obvious whether it's more useful or more harmful to apply it on its own.