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 03/31/2011 02:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    well looking at the code:
    virt/kvm/ioapic.c @@276

    static inline int ioapic_in_range(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic, gpa_t addr)
    {
    return ((addr >= ioapic->base_address &&
    (addr < ioapic->base_address + IOAPIC_MEM_LENGTH)));
    }

    I see: base_address in there but looking more at the code its for
    something completely different..

    Justin P. Mattock


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-31 17:53    [W:0.026 / U:62.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site