Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64

[Steven Rostedt]

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

> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > On 8/9/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/