Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] doc/memory.txt: fix typo

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

On 02/26/2016 07:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 February 2016 at 10:59, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

>>
>> diff --git a/docs/memory.txt b/docs/memory.txt
>> index 8745f76..8aee3d6 100644
>> --- a/docs/memory.txt
>> +++ b/docs/memory.txt
>> @@ -186,15 +186,15 @@ of its own subregions: D of size 0x1000 at offset 0 and E of size 0x1000 at
>>   offset 0x2000. As a diagram:
>>
>>           0      1000   2000   3000   4000   5000   6000   7000    8000
>> -        |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-------|
>> +        |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
>>     A:    [                                                       ]
>> -  C:    [CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC]
>> -  B:                  [                          ]
>> -  D:                  [DDDDD]
>> -  E:                                [EEEEE]
>> +  C:    [CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC]
>> +  B:                  [                           ]
>> +  D:                  [DDDDDD]
>> +  E:                                [EEEEEE]
>>
>>   The regions that will be seen within this address range then are:
>> -        [CCCCCCCCCCCC][DDDDD][CCCCC][EEEEE][CCCCC]
>> +        [CCCCCCCCCCCCC[DDDDDD]CCCCCC[EEEEEE]CCCCCC]
>>
>>   Since B has higher priority than C, its subregions appear in the flat map
>>   even where they overlap with C. In ranges where B has not mapped anything
>> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ C's region appears.
>>   If B had provided its own MMIO operations (ie it was not a pure container)
>>   then these would be used for any addresses in its range not handled by
>>   D or E, and the result would be:
>> -        [CCCCCCCCCCCC][DDDDD][BBBBB][EEEEE][BBBBB]
>> +        [CCCCCCCCCCCCC[DDDDDD]BBBBBB[EEEEEE]BBBBBB]
>>
>>   Priority values are local to a container, because the priorities of two
>>   regions are only compared when they are both children of the same container.
>
> Why is this patch touching all these ascii art diagrams? If you want
> to change them, that's a different patch, but I don't see any need to.
> In fact you seem to have lost some of the [] from your version, so your
> change doesn't look like an improvement to me.
>

well, the diagram seem not aligned so well, so I did the modification.

>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
>
> .
>

-- 
Yours Sincerely,

Cao jin