Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On 8/9/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Does it really matter? >>> >>> >> Well, yes, if alignment is an issue. >> > Of course, But the question rises from the context that they are both > together at the beginning. So they are not making anybody non-aligned. > Then the question: Why would putting it in the end be different to > putting them _together_, aligned at the beginning ? > Well, the point is that if you add new ones then alignment may be an issue. Putting them at the end (with a comment explaining why they're there) will make it more robust. Though splitting them into their own sub-structure would probably be better. Hm. So x86-64 doesn't make 64-bit pointers be 64-bit aligned? J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- References:
- Introducing paravirt_ops for x86_64
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 20/25] [PATCH] replace syscall_init
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 21/25] [PATCH] export cpu_gdt_descr
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 22/25] [PATCH] turn priviled operation into a macro
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 23/25] [PATCH] paravirt hooks for arch initialization
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 24/25] [PATCH] provide paravirt patching function
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- From: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <[email protected]>
- Introducing paravirt_ops for x86_64
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 25/25] [PATCH] add paravirtualization support for x86_64
- Index(es):
 |