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

[Tony Krowiak]

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.
> - some minor stuff