Hey Jerin,
</snip>
> > +
> > + /**
> > + * @warning
> > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this enum may change without prior notice
> > + *
> > + * Crypto event adapter type
> > + */
> > +enum rte_event_crypto_adapter_type {
> > + RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_ONLY = 1,
> > + /**< Start only Rx part of crypto adapter.
> > + * Packets dequeued from cryptodev are new to eventdev and
> > + * events will be treated as RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW */
> > + RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_TX,
> > + /**< Start both Rx & Tx part of crypto adapter.
> > + * Packet's event context will be retained and
> > + * event will be treated as RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD */ };
>
> How about leveraging ev.op based schematics as mentioned above?
That could work, but perhaps the ev.op should be configured once up front, as I
see it being a function of the application architecture. A couple possible
designs, for example:
- Worker enqueues into cryptodev, adapter polls for response: the adapter port
would always use OP_NEW here.
- Worker sends a crypto request event to the adapter, which gives the request
to the cryptodev and polls for response: the adapter port would always use
OP_FWD here. (This ties in with my implicit release patch
(http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-December/083535.html))
- Etc.
So I think it makes sense to specify the op once at adapter configuration time,
rather than repeatedly in the datapath. This allows for a cleaner separation of
configuration and datapath code, and specifying it just once means fewer
chances to accidentally set the wrong op value.
Thanks,
Gage
