Re: hypercall_xlat_continuation()

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 23:01 -0400, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
>> yeah, looks like privcmd_ioctl_32() only fixes the wrapper struct. The
>> PFN array still is 32bit pfn's, and privcmd_ioctl() expects 64bits. So,
>> in a dilemma now, not sure if I should fix it up in privcmd_ioctl_32()
>> or change privcmd_ioctl() which will take some time to reverse engineer.
>> Not sure how many things I'll discover, if it's too many, it may
>> not be worth it in the end.
> 
> FWIW here are my very skanky patches from ages ago (patch names are the
> originals if that gives a clue to my opinion of them even then ;-)).
> 
> I don't even recall if they worked properly (or at all), I think I
> remember starting guests so long as they didn't use blktap (which has
> issues with the user<->kernel ring protocol in this scenario).
> 
> There's an outside change there might be something in them which isn't
> complete rubbish.
> 
> Ian.
> 

Hi Ian,

Looks like you also put in quite a bit of effort into it. I'm
realizing that it is more work than it appeared in the beginning,
and probably not worth the gains in the end. So I should also give up.
learnt few new things along the way tho :).

Thanks,
Mukesh