On 11/16/2017 11:49 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:23:25 -0500
> Tony Krowiak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2017 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2017 01:38 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>> Ping
>>>>> Tony Krowiak (19):
>>>>> KVM: s390: SIE considerations for AP Queue virtualization
>>>>> KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: new AP matrix bus
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: create an AP matrix device on the AP matrix bus
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: base implementation of AP matrix device driver
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: register matrix device with VFIO mediated device
>>>>> framework
>>>>> KVM: s390: introduce AP matrix configuration interface
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: support for assigning adapters to matrix mdev
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate adapter assignment
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: sysfs interfaces supporting AP domain assignment
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate domain assignment
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: sysfs support for control domain assignment
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: validate control domain assignment
>>>>> KVM: s390: Connect the AP mediated matrix device to KVM
>>>>> s390/zcrypt: introduce ioctl access to VFIO AP Matrix driver
>>>>> KVM: s390: interface to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
>>>>> KVM: s390: validate input to AP matrix config interface
>>>>> KVM: s390: New ioctl to configure KVM guest's AP matrix
>>>>> s390/facilities: enable AP facilities needed by guest
>>> I think the approach is fine, and the code also looks fine for the most
>>> part. Some comments:
>>>
>>> - various patches can be squashed together to give a better
>>> understanding at a glance
>> Which patches would you squash?
> See the patches. As a rule, I find it more sensible to introduce
> interface + implementation together rather than separate.
The only patch that introduces an interface separate from the implementation
is patch7:
KVM: s390: introduce AP matrix configuration interface
I've squashed that with patch8, s390/zcrypt: support for assigning adapters to matrix mdev
>
>>> - this needs documentation (as I already said)
>> My plan is to take the cover letter patch and incorporate that into
>> documentation,
>> then replace the cover letter patch with a more concise summary.
> Sounds good.
>
>>> - some of the driver/device modelling feels a bit awkward (commented in
>>> patches) -- I'm not sure that my proposal is better, but I think we
>>> should make sure the interdependencies are modeled correctly
>> I am responding to each patch review individually.
>>> - some minor stuff
>>>
From 1584300293477574375@xxx Fri Nov 17 08:14:59 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1581165300547546289
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread