[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BABE72.90107@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:12:50 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>
CC: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, ak@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, lguest@...abs.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On 8/9/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.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.
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists