> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 16:52 > To: Wang, Haiyue <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Richardson, Bruce > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected]; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; Ankur > Dwivedi <[email protected]>; > Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Guo, Jia <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > <[email protected]>; > Nithin Dabilpuram <[email protected]>; Kiran Kumar K > <[email protected]>; Nicolau, Radu > <[email protected]>; Ray Kinsella <[email protected]>; Neil Horman > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field > > 27/10/2020 03:01, Wang, Haiyue: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > For ixgbe PMD, > > > > Acked-by: Haiyue Wang <[email protected]> > > > > But I feel that 'rte_security_dynfield' name is too generic, can it be > > more specific about what the field is used for ? > > > > Like below ;-) > > > > #define RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA(m) \ > > RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD((m), \ > > rte_security_dev_metadata_offset, \ > > RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA_TYPE *) > > Yes rte_security_dynfield is too much generic, > as well as RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA. > It seems there are different data stored in this field. > We should have different fields for different data. > But such cleanup is another step for someone else.
Understood, thanks, then 'DEV_METADATA' is also generic. > >
