From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] KVM: PPC: e500: MMU API Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:16:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4EBBDCC2.6070101@redhat.com> References: <1320047596-20577-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1320047596-20577-5-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4EAEA184.4050807@redhat.com> <4EAF013C.7050206@freescale.com> <4EAFB4B9.2040806@redhat.com> <4EB01B4B.8090209@freescale.com> <4EBBDDAC.1060505@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Wood , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm list , Marcelo Tosatti To: Alexander Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EBBDDAC.1060505@suse.de> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 11/10/2011 04:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> looks like this is different in the 32x86 ABI. >> >> We can pad explicitly if you prefer. > The size is 16 on 32-bit ppc -- the alignment of __u64 forces this. It > > I would prefer if we keep this stable :). There's no good reason to > pad it - ppc64 creates the same struct definition. There are over 500 > entries currently, and QEMU could make it much larger >> if it wants to decrease guest-visible faults on certain workloads. >> >> It's not the most important feature, indeed we currently ignore the >> bitmap entirely. But it could be useful depending on how the API is >> used in the future, and I don't think we gain much by dropping it at >> this point. Alex, any thoughts? > > The kernel can always opt in to ignore the field if it chooses to, so > I don't see the point in dropping it. There shouldn't be an alignment > problem in the first place :). Ok. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function