Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 03:47:53 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>, arei.gonglei@huawei.com,
        jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, helei.sig11@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto
Message-ID: <20220406034721-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20220302033917.1295334-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
 <a9d1dfc1-080e-fba2-8fbb-28718b067e0d@bytedance.com>
 <20220307040431-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <87h778g8nn.fsf@redhat.com>
 <20220405012015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <87ee2cexp5.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ee2cexp5.fsf@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:33:42AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:39:24PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 07 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:42:30AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> >> >> Hi, Michael & Lei
> >> >> 
> >> >> The full patchset has been reviewed by Gonglei, thanks to Gonglei.
> >> >> Should I modify the virtio crypto specification(use "__le32 akcipher_algo;"
> >> >> instead of "__le32 reserve;" only, see v1->v2 change), and start a new issue
> >> >> for a revoting procedure?
> >> >
> >> > You can but not it probably will be deferred to 1.3. OK with you?
> >> >
> >> >> Also cc Cornelia Huck.
> >> 
> >> [Apologies, I'm horribly behind on my email backlog, and on virtio
> >> things in general :(]
> >> 
> >> The akcipher update had been deferred for 1.2, so I think it will be 1.3
> >> material. However, I just noticed while browsing the fine lwn.net merge
> >> window summary that this seems to have been merged already. That
> >> situation is less than ideal, although I don't expect any really bad
> >> problems, given that there had not been any negative feedback for the
> >> spec proposal that I remember.
> >
> > Let's open a 1.3 branch? What do you think?
> 
> Yes, that's probably best, before things start piling up.

OK, want to do it? And we can then start voting on 1.3 things
straight away.

-- 
MST