>>> On 06.03.17 at 18:15, wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:57:23AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.03.17 at 17:42, wrote:
>> > There where a couple of unneeded packed attributes in several x86-specific
>> > structures, that are obviously aligned. The only non-trivial one is
>> > vmcb_st
On 03/06/2017 11:42 AM, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> There where a couple of unneeded packed attributes in several x86-specific
> structures, that are obviously aligned. The only non-trivial one is
> vmcb_struct, which has been checked to have the same layout with and without
> the packed attribute usi
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:57:23AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.03.17 at 17:42, wrote:
> > There where a couple of unneeded packed attributes in several x86-specific
> > structures, that are obviously aligned. The only non-trivial one is
> > vmcb_struct, which has been checked to have the
>>> On 06.03.17 at 17:42, wrote:
> There where a couple of unneeded packed attributes in several x86-specific
> structures, that are obviously aligned. The only non-trivial one is
> vmcb_struct, which has been checked to have the same layout with and without
> the packed attribute using pahole. In
