Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto adapters

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 16/11/2017 16:23, Tony Krowiak 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?
- 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.
- 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.

I think that instead of responding to each patch individually we should have a discussion on the design because I think a lot could change and discussing about each patch as they may be completely redesigned for the next version may not be very useful.

So I totally agree with Conny on that we should stabilize the bus/device/driver modeling.

I think it would be here a good place to start the discussion on things like we started to discuss, Harald and I, off-line:
- why a matrix bus, in which case we can avoid it
- which kind of devices we need
- how to handle the repartition of queues on boot, reset and hotplug
- interaction with the host drivers
- validation of the matrix for guests and host views

or even features we need to add like
- interruptions
- PAPQ/TAPQ-t and APQI interception
- virtualization of the AP
- CPU model and KVM capabilities

In my understanding these points must be cleared before we really start to discuss the details of the implementation.

Best regards,

Pierre

- some minor stuff




--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux