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.william...@redhat.com
---
0.13 stable candidate?
ACK I would say so.
Jes
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 Williamsonalex.william...@redhat.com
---
0.13 stable candidate?
ACK I would say so.
fw_cfg interfaces
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 Williamsonalex.william...@redhat.com
---
0.13
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:
On Thursday 14 October 2010 21:58:08 Alex Williamson wrote:
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.
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 22:20 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 14 October 2010 21:58:08 Alex Williamson wrote:
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
On Thursday 14 October 2010 22:59:04 Alex Williamson wrote:
The structs in question only contain 4 8 byte elements, so there
shouldn't be any change on x86-32 using one-byte aligned packing.
I'm talking about the alignment of the structure, not the members
within the structure. The data
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 23:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 14 October 2010 22:59:04 Alex Williamson wrote:
The structs in question only contain 4 8 byte elements, so there
shouldn't be any change on x86-32 using one-byte aligned packing.
I'm talking about the alignment of the
