|
From: | Cao jin |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] doc/memory.txt: fix typo |
Date: | Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:30:50 +0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 |
On 02/25/2016 06:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 25 February 2016 at 09:32, Cao jin <address@hidden> wrote:
diff --git a/docs/memory.txt b/docs/memory.txt index 8745f76..1a3ad622 100644 --- a/docs/memory.txt +++ b/docs/memory.txt @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ various constraints can be supplied to control how these callbacks are called: - .valid.min_access_size, .valid.max_access_size define the access sizes (in bytes) which the device accepts; accesses outside this range will have device and bus specific behaviour (ignored, or machine check) - - .valid.aligned specifies that the device only accepts naturally aligned + - .valid.unaligned specifies that the device only accepts naturally aligned accesses. Unaligned accesses invoke device and bus specific behaviour.This doesn't look like the right change, because (a) a field named unaligned which you set true to specifiy that unaligned accesses are invalid would be very confusing and (b) the comment in the header file says that 'valid.unaligned' means that the device does support unaligned accesses.
the reason that I think it is a typo is: from the pattern ".xxx.yyy", this section looks like a explanation(or detailed comment) of struct MemoryRegionOps`s fields, isn`t it? If yes, all the others match with the structure, except this /.valid.aligned/
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/
-- Yours Sincerely, Cao jin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |