Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S939387AbXHIMc1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:32:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S939346AbXHIMcE (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:32:04 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:41267 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S938377AbXHIMcB (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:32:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:30:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge cc: Glauber de Oliveira Costa , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64 In-Reply-To: <46BABE72.90107@goop.org> Message-ID: 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> <46BABE72.90107@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 43 -- On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > 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. Glauber, I was thinking of putting them at the end too, and that would make it all work better. But I didn't mention it because I was in the mindset of "well i386 has that there, we should too" :-( > > Hm. So x86-64 doesn't make 64-bit pointers be 64-bit aligned? yeah, it usually does. But it's one of those paranoid things, where you want it to still work even if someone later on throws an __attribute__((packed)) in on paravirt ops ;-) -- Steve - 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/