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

[Cornelia Huck]

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.

> > - 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
> >  
>