> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: 26 August 2020 15:03 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Durrant, Paul <[email protected]>; > Ian Jackson > <[email protected]>; Wei Liu <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper > <[email protected]>; George > Dunlap <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Stefano > Stabellini > <[email protected]>; Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH v7 8/9] x86/time: add a domain context record > for tsc_info... > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open > attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > On 18.08.2020 12:30, Paul Durrant wrote: > > --- a/xen/include/public/save.h > > +++ b/xen/include/public/save.h > > @@ -93,7 +93,18 @@ struct domain_shared_info_context { > > > > DECLARE_DOMAIN_SAVE_TYPE(SHARED_INFO, 2, struct > > domain_shared_info_context); > > > > -#define DOMAIN_SAVE_CODE_MAX 2 > > +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) > > +struct domain_tsc_info_context { > > + uint32_t mode; > > + uint32_t incarnation; > > + uint64_t elapsed_nsec; > > + uint32_t khz; > > +}; > > sizeof() for this struct varies between 32-bit and 64-bit - is > this not a problem? (alignof() varies too, but there I think > it's indeed not a problem, albeit it could still be taken care > of by using uint64_aligned_t, alongside the addition of an > explicit padding field).
I don't think it should matter because domain context records have implicit padding to align up to the next 64-bit boundary, so as long as fields within the struct don't move (which I think is true in this case) then we should be ok. Paul > > Jan
