On February 27, 2016 11:16:44 AM PST, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 02/27/2016 03:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:44:00 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" ><hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > > __u64 is okay, "unsigned long" is really messy in the presence >of 32-on-64 bit ABIs... >>> > >>> > Yeah, but unfortunately, any 64 bit scalar type here will change >the >>> > alignment of the enclosing unions on (some) 32 bit platforms and >thus >>> > break the ABI. >> Then a different solution has to be found. > >I've acked Stephen's initial patch changing the 'u64' to an 'int'. x86 >only needs 4 bits, and in the remote chance that a future >implementation >needed more space, we could easily add a second 32-bit field "_pkey_hi" >or something that wouldn't have the alignment issues of a true 64-bit >type. > >How should we get Stephen's patch in to the tip tree? u32? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
