On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:37:58 +0800 Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > hw/pci/pcie.c | 2 +- > hw/vfio/pci.c | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Send separate patches. Thanks, Alex > > diff --git a/hw/pci/pcie.c b/hw/pci/pcie.c > index 99cfb45..39b10b8 100644 > --- a/hw/pci/pcie.c > +++ b/hw/pci/pcie.c > @@ -656,7 +656,7 @@ static void pcie_ext_cap_set_next(PCIDevice *dev, > uint16_t pos, uint16_t next) > } > > /* > - * caller must supply valid (offset, size) * such that the range shouldn't > + * Caller must supply valid (offset, size) such that the range wouldn't > * overlap with other capability or other registers. > * This function doesn't check it. > */ > diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c > index 31aaecb..c94987c 100644 > --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c > +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c > @@ -1881,8 +1881,8 @@ static void vfio_add_ext_cap(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) > * 0 is reserved for this since absence of capabilities is indicated by > * 0 for the ID, version, AND next pointer. However, > pcie_add_capability() > * uses ID 0 as reserved for list management and will incorrectly match > and > - * assert if we attempt to pre-load the head of the chain with with this > - * ID. Use ID 0xFFFF temporarily since it is also seems to be reserved > in > + * assert if we attempt to pre-load the head of the chain with this ID. > + * Use ID 0xFFFF temporarily since it is also seems to be reserved in > * part for identifying absence of capabilities in a root complex > register > * block. If the ID still exists after adding capabilities, switch back > to > * zero. We'll mark this entire first dword as emulated for this > purpose.
