Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] KVM: xen: update shared_info and vcpu_info handling

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, Paul Durrant wrote:
> From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@amazon.com>
> 
> Currently we treat the shared_info page as guest memory and the VMM informs
> KVM of its location using a GFN. However it is not guest memory as such;
> it's an overlay page. So we pointlessly invalidate and re-cache a mapping
> to the *same page* of memory every time the guest requests that shared_info
> be mapped into its address space. Let's avoid doing that by modifying the
> pfncache code to allow activation using a fixed userspace HVA as well as
> a GPA.
> 
> Also, if the guest does not hypercall to explicitly set a pointer to a
> vcpu_info in its own memory, the default vcpu_info embedded in the
> shared_info page should be used. At the moment the VMM has to set up a
> pointer to the structure explicitly (again treating it like it's in
> guest memory, despite being in an overlay page). Let's also avoid the
> need for that. We already have a cached mapping for the shared_info
> page so just use that directly by default.

1. Please Cc me on *all* patches if you Cc me on one patch.  I belive this is
   the preference of the vast majority of maintainers/reviewers/contributors.
   Having to go spelunking to find the rest of a series is annoying.

2. Wait a reasonable amount of time between posting versions.  1 hour is not
   reasonable.  At an *absolute minimum*, wait 1 business day.

3. In the cover letter, summarize what's changed between versions.  Lack of a
   summary exacerbates the problems from #1 and #2, e.g. I have a big pile of
   mails scattered across my mailboxes, and I am effectively forced to find and
   read them all if I want to have any clue as to why I have a 12 patch series
   on version 3 in less than two business days.

P.S. I very much appreciate that y'all are doing review publicly, thank you!