Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

2016-11-13 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.11.16 at 07:48, wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39:26PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so >> > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't >> > gua

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

2016-11-11 Thread Wei Liu
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39:26PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote: > > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so > > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't > > guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishi

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

2016-11-11 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote: > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't > guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishing stack pointers for new > vCPU-s. Runtime service functions using SSE