Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936957AbXHIHOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:14:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758869AbXHIHOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:14:35 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:49561 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751287AbXHIHOe (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:14:34 -0400 Message-ID: <46BABE72.90107@goop.org> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:12:50 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa CC: Glauber de Oliveira Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ak@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, chrisw@sous-sol.org, avi@qumranet.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, lguest@ozlabs.org, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64 References: <11865467522495-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11865468321629-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11865468362401-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11865468394005-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11865468431616-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <1186546847263-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11865468513077-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <46BAB5C8.5090906@goop.org> <5d6222a80708090002y7fdc6f2dw1dbacd3d27a86433@mail.gmail.com> <46BABC0F.5070002@goop.org> <5d6222a80708090007h3d185ecdm3ea8fa0b5ee96050@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80708090007h3d185ecdm3ea8fa0b5ee96050@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1026 Lines: 27 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On 8/9/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >>> Does it really matter? >>> >>> >> Well, yes, if alignment is an issue. >> > Of course, But the question rises from the context that they are both > together at the beginning. So they are not making anybody non-aligned. > Then the question: Why would putting it in the end be different to > putting them _together_, aligned at the beginning ? > Well, the point is that if you add new ones then alignment may be an issue. Putting them at the end (with a comment explaining why they're there) will make it more robust. Though splitting them into their own sub-structure would probably be better. Hm. So x86-64 doesn't make 64-bit pointers be 64-bit aligned? J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/