> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: 26 August 2020 15:03
> To: Paul Durrant <p...@xen.org>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Durrant, Paul <pdurr...@amazon.co.uk>;
> Ian Jackson
> <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>; Wei Liu <w...@xen.org>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; George
> Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Stefano
> Stabellini
> <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> 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
