Hi Akhil, Can you review this patch?
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:06 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; John McNamara > <[email protected]>; Marko Kovacevic > <[email protected]> > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju > Athreya <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Akhil Goyal > <[email protected]>; Konstantin Ananyev > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > <[email protected]>; Fan Zhang <[email protected]>; Fiona > Trahe <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: add inline protocol in feature > list > > On 1/22/2020 9:47 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Thanks, > > Anoob > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:42 PM > >> To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; John McNamara > >> <[email protected]>; Marko Kovacevic > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad > >> Raju Athreya <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: add inline protocol in > >> feature list > >> > >> External Email > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> - On 1/21/2020 5:40 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > >>> Hi Ferruh, > >>> > >>> Can you review this patch? > >> > >> Hi Anoob, > >> > >> What is the difference between "Inline crypto" in that document and > >> this "Inline protocol"? Both seems providing same outpout. > > > > [Anoob] Yes. It is partly because the description of "inline crypto" is not > accurate. The feature, "inline crypto" is not ipsec aware but would do crypto > operation in the ipsec. This summary points to the security documentation > for further details and that doc clearly explains the difference between both > modes. > > > >> Is there a way to differentiate them more clearly? > > > > [Anoob] There are two options I can think of, 1. Update the feature > > list to describe the difference between the two. Have a line like, > > "As compared to inline crypto, inline protocol will handle the entire > protocol offload in addition to the crypto operation." > > 2. Both inline crypto and inline protocol falls under security. So could > > even > rename "Inline crypto" to "Inline security offload" and we should be good to > go. Also, under inline protocol, there are various protocols possible. Say, > tomorrow when we add MACSEC support, the same question would arise (as > in whether it's a new feature or would it be under "inline protocol"). > > Hi Anoob, > > These seems security related and I don't know enough to comment if this is > correct thing to do. I have cc'ed a few more people for comment. > > @Akhil, would you mind if I assign this to you? > > Thanks, > ferruh > > > > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Anoob > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Anoob Joseph > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:23 PM > >>>> To: John McNamara <[email protected]>; Marko Kovacevic > >>>> <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > >>>> <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: add inline protocol in feature > >>>> list > >>>> > >>>> Update feature list to include inline protocol offload. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > >>>> --- > >>>> doc/guides/nics/features.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini | 1 + > >>>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > >>>> b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst index > >>>> 8394a65..f4eb2a9 100644 > >>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features.rst > >>>> @@ -433,6 +433,24 @@ Supports inline crypto processing (e.g. inline > >>>> IPsec). See Security library and > >>>> ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD``, > >>>> ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD_FAILED``. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> +.. _nic_features_inline_protocol_doc: > >>>> + > >>>> +Inline protocol > >>>> +--------------- > >>>> + > >>>> +Supports inline protocol processing (e.g. inline IPsec). See > >>>> +Security library and > >>>> PMD documentation for more details. > >>>> + > >>>> +* **[uses] rte_eth_rxconf,rte_eth_rxmode**: > >>>> ``offloads:DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY``, > >>>> +* **[uses] rte_eth_txconf,rte_eth_txmode**: > >>>> ``offloads:DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY``. > >>>> +* **[implements] rte_security_ops**: ``session_create``, > >>>> +``session_update``, > >>>> + ``session_stats_get``, ``session_destroy``, > >>>> +``set_pkt_metadata``, ``get_userdata``, > >>>> + ``capabilities_get``. > >>>> +* **[provides] rte_eth_dev_info**: > >>>> > >> > +``rx_offload_capa,rx_queue_offload_capa:DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY``, > >>>> + > >> > ``tx_offload_capa,tx_queue_offload_capa:DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY``. > >>>> +* **[provides] mbuf**: ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD``, > >>>> + ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD``, > >>>> ``mbuf.ol_flags:PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD_FAILED``. > >>>> + > >>>> + > >>>> .. _nic_features_crc_offload: > >>>> > >>>> CRC offload > >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini > >>>> b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini > >>>> index 91ec619..4d0ad32 100644 > >>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini > >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/default.ini > >>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ Flow API = > >>>> Rate limitation = > >>>> Traffic mirroring = > >>>> Inline crypto = > >>>> +Inline protocol = > >>>> CRC offload = > >>>> VLAN offload = > >>>> QinQ offload = > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.7.4 > >>> > >
