[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC 0/8] virtio-cryp
From: |
Halil Pasic |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC 0/8] virtio-crypto: add multiplexing mode support |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:04:37 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 |
On 10/09/2017 11:22 AM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> The next patch refactors make sense to me,
> but why do we need to decouple the virtio-crypto.h?
>
>
I wanted to be able to freely change the host side and test with an unchanged
guest side, that's why I've done that. It's just for testing. I had to do that
because we don't have a mux capable linux driver. Neither of these patches is
intended for inclusion. I'm just trying to make a point with them: we can
make this substantially simpler (compared to this RFC).
So how do we proceed here? It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of
this series soon. If I recall correctly there were also other things which
can be done in a less convoluted manner.
>> The basic idea behind the whole thing is that tinging about the requests put
>> on the virtqueues in terms of just complicates things unnecessarily.
>>
>> I could guess I will post the interesting part as a reply to this and the
>> less
>> interesting part (decoupling) as an attachment. You are supposed to apply
>> first
>> the attachment then the part after the scissors line.
>>
>> Of course should you could respin the series preferably with the test
>> included I can rebase my stuff.
>>
>> Please let me know about your opinion.
>>
> Thanks for your work, Halil. What's your opinion about virtio crypto spec v20?
I'm on it. I've already started witting on Friday but things turned out a bit
more
interesting that expected. So I've postponed to today. Of course the two things
are
connected. I will try to give some feedback today.
Regards,
Halil
>
> Thanks,
> -Gonglei
>