On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +0000, Zeng, Xin wrote: > Hi, Michael, > As you know, Lei Gong from Huawei and I are co-working on virtio crypto > device spec, he is focusing on symmetric algorithm part, I am focusing on > asymmetric part. Now I am planning the implementation for asymmetric part, > would you please give me your point regarding the questions below? > Current virtio crypto device implementation from Lei Gong: > The virtio crypto device implementation has been upstreamed to QEMU and it > has a qemu backend implementation for symmetric algorithm part, the front end > Linux device driver for symmetric part has been upstreamed to Linux kernel as > well. > My questions: > From my side, I planned to add the asymmetric part support in upstreamed > front end device driver, and I don't want to add the asymmetric algorithm > support to current virtio crypto device's qemu backend, instead, I would like > to implement and upstream a DPDK vhost-user based backend for asymmetric > algorithm, and accordingly Lei Gong will help to upstream a vhost user agent > for virtio crypto device in QEMU, is this approach acceptable? Is a qemu > backend a mandatory requirement for the virtio crypto device? Is there a > general policy for this? > > Thanks
Parity on QEMU side is naturally preferable. I don't think we should require it at all times, but if there's no implementation outside vhost-user, and if the feature includes a non-trivial amount of code, how will it be tested? I don't think we want to require all testers to use dpdk. An implementation under tests using libvhost-user might be a solution. -- MST
