> -----Original Message----- > From: Halil Pasic [mailto:pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > 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