Re: [PATCH v4 for-4.14 2/2] pvcalls: Document correctly and explicitely the padding for all arches

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 27.06.20 11:55, Julien Grall wrote:
> From: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The specification of pvcalls suggests there is padding for 32-bit x86
> at the end of most the structure. However, they are not described in
> in the public header.
>
> Because of that all the structures would be 32-bit aligned and not
> 64-bit aligned for 32-bit x86.
>
> For all the other architectures supported (Arm and 64-bit x86), the
> structure are aligned to 64-bit because they contain uint64_t field.
> Therefore all the structures contain implicit padding.
>
> Given the specification is authoriitative, the padding will the same for
s/authoriitative/authoritative/

> the all architectures. The potential breakage of compatibility is ought
s/the//

> to be fine as pvcalls is still a tech preview.
>
> As an aside, the padding sadly cannot be mandated to be 0 as they are
> already present. So it is not going to be possible to use the padding
> for extending a command in the future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
With above fixed:

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>


Juergen