lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64

    --
    On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

    > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
    > > On 8/9/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-08-09 14:35    [W:3.234 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site