From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D16FC433F5 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348176AbiDELCc (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:02:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53406 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236921AbiDEIlX (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 04:41:23 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7710114C for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:34:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1649147656; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z65CXYbIBUl/IlVCrlM6BZQKF+ZppxomZMYuDllBYxE=; b=FgxQGsUhQ6/Ul6iA5ukP1u5jptq6njHxozoGUJI7Ky1QS0VITiCW0eItR4vU/q6m/I5uiv yhKiPpg6P/YPU1tE1bikZr/Lz5I42NNsSGkXxjdjXnjr0arQhnsTnC2/tPGLvPP5mlIXtg 5gRVyDk6jGBOohC/CwWAW8YaGuJ0gUQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-64-bYIfSXvxPQ2HCL19_IPyWQ-1; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 04:34:12 -0400 X-MC-Unique: bYIfSXvxPQ2HCL19_IPyWQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CF3F38025E9; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:34:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-213.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.213]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28080145D850; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:33:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: zhenwei pi , arei.gonglei@huawei.com, jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, helei.sig11@bytedance.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto In-Reply-To: <20220405012015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Organization: Red Hat GmbH References: <20220302033917.1295334-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com> <20220307040431-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <87h778g8nn.fsf@redhat.com> <20220405012015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.34 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:33:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87ee2cexp5.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.7 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 05 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:39:24PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 07 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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? Yes, that's probably best, before things start piling up.