[PATCH v2 3/7] virt: geniezone: Introduce GenieZone hypervisor support

[Trilok Soni]

Hi Marc,

> 
> [...]
> 
>> +/**
>> + * gzvm_gfn_to_pfn_memslot() - Translate gfn (guest ipa) to pfn (host 
>> pa),
>> + *                   result is in @pfn
>> + *
>> + * Leverage KVM's gfn_to_pfn_memslot(). Because gfn_to_pfn_memslot() 
>> needs
>> + * kvm_memory_slot as parameter, this function populates necessary 
>> fileds
>> + * for calling gfn_to_pfn_memslot().
>> + *
>> + * Return:
>> + * * 0            - Succeed
>> + * * -EFAULT        - Failed to convert
>> + */
>> +static int gzvm_gfn_to_pfn_memslot(struct gzvm_memslot *memslot, u64
>> gfn, u64 *pfn)
>> +{
>> +    hfn_t __pfn;
>> +    struct kvm_memory_slot kvm_slot = {0};
>> +
>> +    kvm_slot.base_gfn = memslot->base_gfn;
>> +    kvm_slot.npages = memslot->npages;
>> +    kvm_slot.dirty_bitmap = NULL;
>> +    kvm_slot.userspace_addr = memslot->userspace_addr;
>> +    kvm_slot.flags = memslot->flags;
>> +    kvm_slot.id = memslot->slot_id;
>> +    kvm_slot.as_id = 0;
>> +
>> +    __pfn = gfn_to_pfn_memslot(&kvm_slot, gfn);
> 
> Again, I absolutely oppose this horror. This is internal to KVM,
> and we want to be able to change this without having to mess
> with your own code that we cannot test anyway.
> 
> What if we start using the extra fields that you don't populate
> as they mean nothing to you? Or add a backpointer to the kvm
> structure to do fancy accounting?
> 
> You have your own hypervisor, that's well and good. Since your
> main argument is that it is supposed to be standalone, make it
> *really* standalone and don't use KVM as a prop.


Agreed, same comments were made earlier too. I would prefer that 
GenieZone have its own identify rather than sharing the 
APIs/data-structures here.

---Trilok Soni