Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [RFC 00/19] KVM: s390/crypto/vfio: guest dedicated crypto adapters | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:06:58 +0100 |
| |
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@linux.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 > 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
|  |