On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:22 PM Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
Yes, > > > > > Across the patch series, the above pattern is common, Please fix in all > > relevant > > instances.
