Hi Jerin,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 1:17 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; Declan Doherty
> <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>;
> Tejasree Kondoj <ktejas...@marvell.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jer...@marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathr...@marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda
> <kirankum...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
> <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>;
> Archana Muniganti <march...@marvell.com>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
> <vattun...@marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik <lbarto...@marvell.com>; dpdk-dev
> <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/15] crypto/octeontx2: configure for
> inline IPsec
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:26 PM Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejas...@marvell.com>
> >
> > For enabling outbound inline IPsec, a CPT queue needs to be tied to a
> > NIX PF_FUNC. Distribute CPT queues fairly among all availble
> > otx2 eth ports.
> >
> > For inbound, one CPT LF will be assigned and initialized by kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Archana Muniganti <march...@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejas...@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattun...@marvell.com>
>
> >
> > +static int
> > +otx2_cpt_qp_inline_cfg(const struct rte_cryptodev *dev, struct
> > +otx2_cpt_qp *qp) {
> > + static rte_atomic16_t port_offset = RTE_ATOMIC16_INIT(-1);
> > + uint16_t port_id, nb_ethport = rte_eth_dev_count_avail();
> > + int i, ret;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < nb_ethport; i++) {
> > + port_id = rte_atomic16_add_return(&port_offset, 1) %
> > nb_ethport;
> > + if (otx2_is_ethdev(&rte_eth_devices[port_id]))
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (i >= nb_ethport)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + ret = otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(dev, qp, port_id);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> Last five lines can be replaced with "return otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(dev, qp,
> port_id)"
[Anoob] In one of the following patches, one more call would be introduced
after the call to otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(). So the above lines will have to be
introduced anyway. For the last such addition, I'll make it return directly. Is
that fine?
>
> Across the patch series, the above pattern is common, Please fix in all
> relevant
> instances.
