Re: [Qemu-devel] please review this scsi patch

Re: [Qemu-devel] please review this scsi patch

[Ben Taylor]

---- Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote: 
> Wang Cheng Yeh wrote:
> > thanks
> 
> If you include a description of what the patch does and why it is 
> necessary, it will probably be reviewed a lot quicker.

He's posted this one before, and the patch fixes such blatent
programming errors like an XOR case option using "|" instead 
of "^" and a 32-bit write split into 4 byte writes, and passing
the third byte twice.

Ben

[Qemu-devel] please review this scsi patch

[Wang Cheng Yeh]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7 bytes --]

thanks

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: diff --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1165 bytes --]

Index: hw/lsi53c895a.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/qemu/qemu/hw/lsi53c895a.c,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 lsi53c895a.c
--- hw/lsi53c895a.c	29 Aug 2006 04:52:16 -0000	1.3
+++ hw/lsi53c895a.c	19 Mar 2007 05:18:29 -0000
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@
     uint32_t ia;
     uint32_t sbc;
     uint32_t csbc;
-    uint32_t scratch[13]; /* SCRATCHA-SCRATCHR */
+    uint32_t scratch[18]; /* SCRATCHA-SCRATCHR */
 
     /* Script ram is stored as 32-bit words in host byteorder.  */
     uint32_t script_ram[2048];
@@ -1038,7 +1038,7 @@
                 op0 |= op1;
                 break;
             case 3: /* XOR */
-                op0 |= op1;
+                op0 ^= op1;
                 break;
             case 4: /* AND */
                 op0 &= op1;
@@ -1765,7 +1765,7 @@
     lsi_reg_writeb(s, addr, val & 0xff);
     lsi_reg_writeb(s, addr + 1, (val >> 8) & 0xff);
     lsi_reg_writeb(s, addr + 2, (val >> 16) & 0xff);
-    lsi_reg_writeb(s, addr + 2, (val >> 24) & 0xff);
+    lsi_reg_writeb(s, addr + 3, (val >> 24) & 0xff);
 }
 
 static void lsi_io_mapfunc(PCIDevice *pci_dev, int region_num, 

Re: [Qemu-devel] please review this scsi patch

[Avi Kivity]

Wang Cheng Yeh wrote:
> thanks

If you include a description of what the patch does and why it is 
necessary, it will probably be reviewed a lot quicker.


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