-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; Shetty, Praveen
<praveen.she...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan
<declan.dohe...@intel.com>
Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
<konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: support flow director
feature
> > > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
> > > b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c index d40657102..76ee9dbcf 100644
> > > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
> > > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
> > > @@ -418,6 +418,73 @@ create_inline_session(struct socket_ctx
> > > *skt_ctx, struct ipsec_sa *sa,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +int
> > > +create_ipsec_esp_flow(struct ipsec_sa *sa) {
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + struct rte_flow_error err;
> > > + if (sa->direction == RTE_SECURITY_IPSEC_SA_DIR_EGRESS)
> > > + return 0; /* No Flow director rules for Egress traffic */
> >
> > [Anoob] Any reason why this is not relevant for Egress.
> >
> > [Praveen] we don't see an use case for load distribution across
> > ingress queues for outbound IPsec traffic therefore we have limited
> > this configuration to inbound IPsec processing, as this is the only use
> > case we can verify.
>
> [Anoob] Why do you say load distribution for ingress queues is not
> required but is required for egress? I would say the use case is the same in
> either direction.
>
> Said that, adding just egress should be fine. I leave this to Akhil's
> judgement.
>
I believe it does not matter for EGRESS in most hardwares, INGRESS flows should
have distribution. I think your comments are just reverse but The code is
inline with my understanding.
[Praveen]
Current implementation is only for ingress traffic load distribution therefore
it is applicable only for inbound IPsec traffic.
