[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171114145722.4ab850a5.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:57:22 +0100
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
kwankhede@...dia.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@...gnu.org,
jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto
adapters
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:39:09 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.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
- this needs documentation (as I already said)
- 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
- some minor stuff
Powered by blists - more mailing lists