lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH]arch:x86:kvm:i8254.h Fix typo in kvm_pit
    On 03/30/2011 07:42 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
    > On 03/30/2011 10:17 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
    >> On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
    >>> On 03/30/2011 09:26 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
    >>>> On 03/30/2011 06:19 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
    >>>>> The below patch changes base_addresss to base_address.
    >>>>> Note: I have grepped for base_addresss and nothing shows up,
    >>>>> grepping for base_address gets me lots of output, telling me that
    >>>>> this is a typo, but could be wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ---
    >>>>> arch/x86/kvm/i8254.h | 2 +-
    >>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.h b/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.h
    >>>>> index 46d08ca..c2fa48b 100644
    >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.h
    >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.h
    >>>>> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ struct kvm_kpit_state {
    >>>>> };
    >>>>>
    >>>>> struct kvm_pit {
    >>>>> - unsigned long base_addresss;
    >>>>> + unsigned long base_address;
    >>>>> struct kvm_io_device dev;
    >>>>> struct kvm_io_device speaker_dev;
    >>>>> struct kvm *kvm;
    >>>>
    >>>> Why not remove the variable completely?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> didnt even think to completely remove the variable(figured it was used
    >>> somewhere).I will look at that and resend with removal of the variable
    >>> for you..
    >>
    >> Well if it was used, you ought to have changed all of the users, no?
    >>
    >
    > at the moment I see:
    > (keep in mind my reading skills only go so far!)
    >
    > grep -Re base_address kvm/* -n
    > kvm/ioapic.c:276: return ((addr >= ioapic->base_address &&
    > kvm/ioapic.c:277: (addr < ioapic->base_address +
    > IOAPIC_MEM_LENGTH)));
    > kvm/ioapic.c:371: ioapic->base_address =
    > IOAPIC_DEFAULT_BASE_ADDRESS;
    > kvm/ioapic.h:38: u64 base_address;
    >
    > so changing base_addresss; to base_address; gets kvm_ioapic_reset to
    > function correctly as well as ioapic_in_range?
    > (but could be wrong)
    >

    Can you explain how kvm_ioapic_reset() would be affected by the change?

    Really, you need to understand what you're doing before sending patches.

    --
    error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-31 11:23    [W:0.031 / U:59.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site