14/04/2020 16:02, Trahe, Fiona: > Hi Thomas, > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 14/04/2020 15:04, Trahe, Fiona: > > > > 14/04/2020 12:21, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/mn2pr11mb35507d4b96677a41e66440c5e3...@mn2pr11mb3550.na > > > > mprd11.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > > > > > I am not convinced. > > > > I don't like rawdev in general. > > > > Rawdev is good only for hardware support which cannot be generic > > > > like SoC, FPGA management or DMA engine. > > > > > > [Fiona] CRC and BIP are not crypto algorithms, they are error detection > > > processes. > > > So there is no class in DPDK that these readily fit into. > > > There was resistance to adding another xxxddev, and even if one had been > > > added > > > for error_detection_dev, there would still have been another layer needed > > > to couple this with cryptodev. Various proposals for this have been > > > discussed on the ML > > > in RFC and recent patches, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for this > > > as a generic API. > > > So it seems that only Intel has software and hardware engines that > > > provide this > > > specialised feature coupling. In that case rawdev seems like the most > > > appropriate vehicle to expose this. > > > > Adding some vendor-specific API is not a good answer. > > It will work in some cases, but it won't make DPDK better. > > What's the purpose of DPDK if it's not solving a common problem > > for different hardware? > > [Fiona] Based on that logic rawdev should be deprecated. > But the community has agreed that it has a place.
No, as I said above, rawdev is good for SoC, FPGA management or DMA engine. > And the common problem here is device exposure. > With a specialised service on top. > > > > > > Here the intent is to use rawdev because we don't find a good API. > > > > API defeat is a no-go. > > > > > > [Fiona] It's not that we haven't found a good API, but that there doesn't > > > seem > > > to be a general requirement for such a specialised API > > > > There is a requirement to combine features of different classes. > > [Fiona] Can you point me to that requirement please? Yes, rte_security is trying to address this exact issue. > We suggested it, but did not get community engagement and have > dropped our generic API requirement, instead focussing on this specialised > case. I did not see such generic proposal, sorry. > > In the past, rte_security was an "answer" to this issue with crypto and > > ethdev. > > This is a real topic, please let's find a generic elegant solution.
