Re: [PATCH]arch:x86:kvm:i8254.h Fix typo in kvm_pit

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

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