Hi Alex, On 03/27/2014 07:44 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Christopher Covington <c...@codeaurora.org> writes: > >> Hi Alex, >> > <snip> > > DEF("dfilter", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_DFILTER, \ > "-dfilter range,.. filter debug output to range of addresses (useful for > -d cpu,exec,etc..)\n", > QEMU_ARCH_ALL) > STEXI > @item -dfilter @var{range1}[,...] > @findex -dfilter > Filter debug output to that relevant to a range of target addresses. The > filter > spec can be either 0x${START}-0x${END} or 0x${START}+0x${OFF} where ${START} > ${END} and ${OFF} are the addresses and sizes required. For example: > > -dfilter 0x8000-0x9000,0xffffffc000080000+0x200 > > Will dump output for any code in the 0x1000 sized block starting at 0x8000 and > the 0x200 sized block starting at 0xffffffc000080000. > ETEXI > > Does that read clearly enough? I assume that should magically make it's > way to the man page somehow?
This level of detail is helpful. I think "range1" and "filter spec" should use matching terms. Unless space is at a premium, spelling out ${OFFSET} might aid some readers. In the C portion, I wonder if renaming qemu_log_in_addr_range to something like qemu_addr_in_dfilter_ranges might add clarity? Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation.