From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ8FT-0002X4-Qi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:35:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ8FP-0006kV-Ps for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:35:19 -0500 References: <1456392739-30336-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <56CF020A.8030704@cn.fujitsu.com> From: Cao jin Message-ID: <56CFBA10.7000708@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:36:00 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] doc/memory.txt: fix typo List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Trivial , Paolo Bonzini , QEMU Developers On 02/25/2016 10:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 February 2016 at 13:30, Cao jin wrote: > > You're certainly right that the documentation as it stands is wrong. > I don't think this is a simple typo though. Probably what happened > was that when the API was being designed it started off with an > 'unaligned' field, and then later the field name and semantics > were changed but the docs weren't updated to match. My point was > that just changing the name without looking at the behaviour we're > actually implementing isn't correct. > Totally agree with the point. >> I admit that, the description like ".valid.unaligned specifies that the >> device only accepts naturally aligned accesses" looks very confusing. But >> from the only caller memory_region_access_valid(), I think the original >> maybe not quite good? how about this: > >> /.valid.unaligned specifies that the device accepts unaligned accesses. If >> false, Unaligned accesses invoke device and bus specific behaviour/ > > I would suggest: > > - .valid.unaligned specifies that the *device being modelled* > supports unaligned accesses; if false, unaligned accesses will > invoke the appropriate bus or CPU specific behaviour. > Does better. I want to pack this into a trivial patch first, because the original is not easy to read & understand > (the idea being to make the text parallel to the existing > .impl.unaligned docs so it's clear what the difference is.) > > thanks > -- PMM > > > . > -- Yours Sincerely, Cao jin