From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932675AbXGRLpQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:45:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758333AbXGRLpE (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:45:04 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:46921 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758292AbXGRLpD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:45:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Standardize x86_64's desc_defs.h in preparation for exposure to i386. From: Rusty Russell To: Andi Kleen Cc: lkml - Kernel Mailing List , kvm-devel , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20070718090302.GA67073@muc.de> References: <1184743355.10380.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070718090302.GA67073@muc.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:44:45 +1000 Message-Id: <1184759085.10380.137.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 11:03 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 05:22:34PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > However, the currently (i386-derived) x86-64 ones are suboptimal. The > > In what way are they suboptimal? This was badly worded. They're "suboptimal" for use by i386 (ie. they clash with the i386 declaration and they'd need lots of casts to convert the code). Of course, treating them as 2 32-bit values on x86-64 *is* suboptimal, and this patch helps that, but that wasn't what I was talking about. > They seem to work just fine. Yep. But my first attempt was to simply #include from asm-i386, and that doesn't work fine 8( Thanks, Rusty.