[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+rthh8T3Y9XAz+J3C7KfeJa_0d9if9GSrhwTNYhPR+RgEnXKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:51:06 +0200
From: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] KVM: x86 emulator: use aligned variants of SSE
register ops
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 08/30/2012 02:30 AM, Mathias Krause wrote:
>>> As the the compiler ensures that the memory operand is always aligned
>>> to a 16 byte memory location,
>>
>> I'm not sure it does. Is V4SI aligned? Do we use alignof() to
>> propagate the alignment to the vcpu allocation code?
I checked that to by introducing a dummy char member in struct operand
that would have misaligned vec_val but, indeed, the compiler ensured
it's still 16 byte aligned.
>
> We actually do. But please rebase the series against next, I got some
> conflicts while applying.
If "next" means kvm/next
(i.e.git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git#next) here, the
whole series applies cleanly for me.
HEAD in kvm/next is 9a78197 "KVM: x86: remove unused variable from
kvm_task_switch()" here. Albeit the series was build against kvm/next
at the time as a81aba1 "KVM: VMX: Ignore segment G and D bits when
considering whether we can virtualize" was HEAD in this branch.
Could you please retry and show me the conflicts you get?
Regards,
Mathias
--
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