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

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

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.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function