Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] doc/memory.txt: fix typo

[Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 02/25/2016 06:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 February 2016 at 09:32, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

>> diff --git a/docs/memory.txt b/docs/memory.txt
>> index 8745f76..1a3ad622 100644
>> --- a/docs/memory.txt
>> +++ b/docs/memory.txt
>> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ various constraints can be supplied to control how these callbacks are called:
>>    - .valid.min_access_size, .valid.max_access_size define the access sizes
>>      (in bytes) which the device accepts; accesses outside this range will
>>      have device and bus specific behaviour (ignored, or machine check)
>> - - .valid.aligned specifies that the device only accepts naturally aligned
>> + - .valid.unaligned specifies that the device only accepts naturally aligned
>>      accesses.  Unaligned accesses invoke device and bus specific behaviour.
>
> This doesn't look like the right change, because (a) a field named
> unaligned which you set true to specifiy that unaligned accesses
> are invalid would be very confusing and (b) the comment in the
> header file says that 'valid.unaligned' means that the device does
> support unaligned accesses.
>

the reason that I think it is a typo is: from the pattern ".xxx.yyy", 
this section looks like a explanation(or detailed comment) of struct 
MemoryRegionOps`s fields, isn`t it? If yes, all the others match with 
the structure, except this /.valid.aligned/

I admit that, the description like ".valid.unaligned specifies that the 
device only accepts naturally aligned accesses" looks very confusing. 
But from the only caller memory_region_access_valid(), I think the 
original maybe not quite good? how about this:

/.valid.unaligned specifies that the device accepts unaligned accesses. 
  If false, Unaligned accesses invoke device and bus specific behaviour/


-- 
Yours Sincerely,

Cao jin