From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40701 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P6TwO-0005BM-AA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:58:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.williamson@redhat.com>) id 1P6TwN-00043P-9N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:58:16 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54754)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.williamson@redhat.com>) id 1P6TwN-00043F-2y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:58:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] pc: e820 qemu_cfg tables need to be
	packed
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CB75EA4.9080004@codemonkey.ws>
References: <20101014183249.23510.29196.stgit@s20.home>
	<4CB75D86.7040300@redhat.com>  <4CB75EA4.9080004@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:58:08 -0600
Message-ID: <1287086288.2987.10.camel@x201>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

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<alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> 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,

Alex