From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Justin P. Mattock" Subject: Re: [PATCH]arch:x86:kvm:i8254.h Fix typo in kvm_pit Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:50:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4D94A2D3.3020707@gmail.com> References: <1301501942-3937-1-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <4D9359CC.6050508@redhat.com> <4D935AC3.2030509@gmail.com> <4D93659F.2020900@redhat.com> <4D936B7F.40407@gmail.com> <4D944764.4040202@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: trivial@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D944764.4040202@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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