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). So how do we proceed here? It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of this series soon. If I recall correctly there were also other things which can be done in a less convoluted manner. >> 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. Regards, Halil > > Thanks, > -Gonglei >