[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471E833B.6070602@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:26:51 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7 1/3] x86 boot: setup data
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Furthermore, on looking through the code again, I see a bunch of
> "init_pg_tables_end + setup_data_len" which really is ugly.
Yeah, that's what I'm objecting to.
>> What are the alignment rules for this structure? Is it always 64-bit
>> aligned? What about the relationship of len and data?
>>
>
> It's x86, so alignment is soft - it presumably *should* be 64-bit
> aligned, but nothing break if the boot loader doesn't.
This was more or less a rhetorical question - the code spends some
effort in rounding len up to some alignment, so its probably worth
documenting with the structure.
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