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