From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] pc: e820 qemu_cfg tables need to be packed Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:48:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4CB75EA4.9080004@codemonkey.ws> References: <20101014183249.23510.29196.stgit@s20.home> <4CB75D86.7040300@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Jes Sorensen Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:36906 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755019Ab0JNTs7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:48:59 -0400 Received: by iwn35 with SMTP id 35so358191iwn.19 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:48:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB75D86.7040300@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/14/2010 02:44 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 10/14/10 20:33, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> We can't let the compiler define the alignment for qemu_cfg data. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson >> --- >> >> 0.13 stable candidate? >> > ACK I would say so. > fw_cfg interfaces are somewhat difficult to rationalize about for compatibility. 0.13.0 is tagged already so it's too late to pull it in there. If we say we don't care about compatibility at the fw_cfg level, then it doesn't matter if we pull it into stable-0.13. If we do care, then this is an ABI breaker. I don't know that the answer is obvious to me. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Jes > >