Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto
 adapters
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org,
        jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1507916344-3896-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <5baf5f90-6cac-3c09-7b66-1bc8b30b8093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171114145722.4ab850a5.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <fcfd6a27-662b-9a30-8bad-adaac4cf0ce1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171116174916.3d3afa9a.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:41:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171116174916.3d3afa9a.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <cc173ca0-fadf-117a-7092-690d31352c7c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/16/2017 11:49 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:23:25 -0500
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2017 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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