From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] x86/altp2m: basic data structures
 and support routines.
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:14:48 +0100
Message-ID: <558A9128.6050506@citrix.com>
References: <1434999372-3688-1-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com>
	<1434999372-3688-5-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com>
	<558A8689.2060501@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <558A8689.2060501@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: Ravi Sahita <ravi.sahita@intel.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, tlengyel@novetta.com, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 24/06/15 11:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/06/15 19:56, Ed White wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
>> index 3d8f4dc..a1529c0 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
>> @@ -118,6 +118,13 @@ struct nestedvcpu {
>>  
>>  #define vcpu_nestedhvm(v) ((v)->arch.hvm_vcpu.nvcpu)
>>  
>> +struct altp2mvcpu {
>> +    uint16_t    p2midx;         /* alternate p2m index */
>> +    uint64_t    veinfo_gfn;     /* #VE information page guest pfn */
> Please use the recently-introduced pfn_t here.  pfn is a more
> appropriate term than gfn in this case.

And of course, I meant to say that gfn should be the term to use, since
this is a guest physical address, from its point of view.

~Andrew