Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC 0/8] virtio-crypto: add multiplexing mode support

[Gonglei (Arei)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Halil Pasic [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 7:05 PM
> 
> On 10/09/2017 11:22 AM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > The next patch refactors make sense to me,
> > but why do we need to decouple the virtio-crypto.h?
> >
> >
> 
> I wanted to be able to freely change the host side and test with an unchanged
> guest side, that's why I've done that. It's just for testing. I had to do that
> because we don't have a mux capable linux driver. Neither of these patches is
> intended for inclusion. I'm just trying to make a point with them: we can
> make this substantially simpler (compared to this RFC).
> 
I see.

> So how do we proceed here? It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of

Maybe Longpeng can apply your test patches in the following patch set when
he has time. @Longpeng

> this series soon. If I recall correctly there were also other things which
> can be done in a less convoluted manner.
> 
Oh? Which things?

> >> The basic idea behind the whole thing is that tinging about the requests 
> >> put
> >> on the virtqueues in terms of just complicates things unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> I could guess I will post the interesting part as a reply to this and the 
> >> less
> >> interesting part (decoupling) as an attachment. You are supposed to apply
> first
> >> the attachment then the part after the scissors line.
> >>
> >> Of course should you could respin the series preferably with the test
> >> included I can rebase my stuff.
> >>
> >> Please let me know about your opinion.
> >>
> > Thanks for your work, Halil. What's your opinion about virtio crypto spec 
> > v20?
> 
> I'm on it. I've already started witting on Friday but things turned out a bit 
> more
> interesting that expected. So I've postponed to today. Of course the two 
> things
> are
> connected. I will try to give some feedback today.
> 
Sounds good.

Thanks,
-Gonglei