Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC 0/8] virtio-crypto: add multiplexing mode support

From: "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, longpeng <longpeng2@huawei.com>
Cc: "wangxin (U)" <wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com>,
	"virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org"
	<virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>,
	"Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com" <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>,
	"Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@huawei.com>,
	"brian.a.keating@intel.com" <brian.a.keating@intel.com>,
	"mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"xin.zeng@intel.com" <xin.zeng@intel.com>,
	"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	Luonengjun <luonengjun@huawei.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"john.griffin@intel.com" <john.griffin@intel.com>,
	"agraf@suse.de" <agraf@suse.de>,
	"liang.j.ma@intel.com" <liang.j.ma@intel.com>,
	"mike.caraman@nxp.com" <mike.caraman@nxp.com>,
	"stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"Varun.Sethi@freescale.com" <Varun.Sethi@freescale.com>,
	Jani Kokkonen <Jani.Kokkonen@huawei.com>,
	"vincent.jardin@6wind.com" <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>,
	"denglingli@chinamobile.com" <denglingli@chinamobile.com>,
	"arei.gonglei@hotmail.com" <arei.gonglei@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC 0/8] virtio-crypto: add multiplexing mode support
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:17:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <33183CC9F5247A488A2544077AF19020DA3FBDD3@DGGEMA505-MBX.china.huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7eaac82c-0d8b-47f1-94dd-772b3abf31f9@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Halil Pasic [mailto:pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 7:05 PM
> 
> 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).
> 
I see.

> So how do we proceed here? It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of

Maybe Longpeng can apply your test patches in the following patch set when
he has time. @Longpeng

> this series soon. If I recall correctly there were also other things which
> can be done in a less convoluted manner.
> 
Oh? Which things?

> >> 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.
> 
Sounds good.

Thanks,
-Gonglei