Hi Jerin, Please see inline.
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 1:17 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Declan Doherty > <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; > Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > <[email protected]>; Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda > <[email protected]>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram > <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula > <[email protected]>; Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]>; > Archana Muniganti <[email protected]>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru > <[email protected]>; Lukas Bartosik <[email protected]>; dpdk-dev > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Archana Muniganti <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <[email protected]> > > > > > +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.
