Cornelia Huck
2022-Apr-04 15:39 UTC
[PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto
On Mon, Mar 07 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:42:30AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: >> Hi, Michael & Lei >> >> The full patchset has been reviewed by Gonglei, thanks to Gonglei. >> Should I modify the virtio crypto specification(use "__le32 akcipher_algo;" >> instead of "__le32 reserve;" only, see v1->v2 change), and start a new issue >> for a revoting procedure? > > You can but not it probably will be deferred to 1.3. OK with you? > >> Also cc Cornelia Huck.[Apologies, I'm horribly behind on my email backlog, and on virtio things in general :(] The akcipher update had been deferred for 1.2, so I think it will be 1.3 material. However, I just noticed while browsing the fine lwn.net merge window summary that this seems to have been merged already. That situation is less than ideal, although I don't expect any really bad problems, given that there had not been any negative feedback for the spec proposal that I remember.
Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-Apr-05 05:20 UTC
[PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:39:24PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:> On Mon, Mar 07 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:42:30AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > >> Hi, Michael & Lei > >> > >> The full patchset has been reviewed by Gonglei, thanks to Gonglei. > >> Should I modify the virtio crypto specification(use "__le32 akcipher_algo;" > >> instead of "__le32 reserve;" only, see v1->v2 change), and start a new issue > >> for a revoting procedure? > > > > You can but not it probably will be deferred to 1.3. OK with you? > > > >> Also cc Cornelia Huck. > > [Apologies, I'm horribly behind on my email backlog, and on virtio > things in general :(] > > The akcipher update had been deferred for 1.2, so I think it will be 1.3 > material. However, I just noticed while browsing the fine lwn.net merge > window summary that this seems to have been merged already. That > situation is less than ideal, although I don't expect any really bad > problems, given that there had not been any negative feedback for the > spec proposal that I remember.Let's open a 1.3 branch? What do you think? -- MST