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 14:59:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4CB76109.80707@codemonkey.ws> References: <20101014183249.23510.29196.stgit@s20.home> <4CB75D86.7040300@redhat.com> <4CB75EA4.9080004@codemonkey.ws> <1287086288.2987.10.camel@x201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jes Sorensen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Williamson Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:49692 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755075Ab0JNT7N (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:59:13 -0400 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so13495vws.19 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1287086288.2987.10.camel@x201> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/14/2010 02:58 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 14:48 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> 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. >> > If it works anywhere (I assume it works on 32bit), then it's only > because it happened to get the alignment right. This just makes 64bit > hosts get it right too. I don't see any compatibility issues, > non-packed + 64bit = broken. Thanks, > Ok, I'll buy that argument :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > Alex > >