Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:52 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
> <[email protected]>; Nicolau, Radu
> <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: add cryptodev mask option
>
> Previously, ipsec-secgw application did not give user the flexibility to
> decide
> which crypto device(s) will be used.
>
> In this patch, a new cryptodev_mask option is added to the application.
> Same as portmask, the cryptodev_mask avails the user to mask out the
> unwanted crypto devices in the system.
>
> This patch is similar to the support added in l2fwd-crypto
> (d2797f51cc63: examples/l2fwd-crypto: add cryptodev mask option)
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>
> ---
...
Not sure if you should change the order of the crypto devices that was set
previously
(starting from the end and not from the beginning). Shouldn't we keep it as it
was?
> idx = 0;
> - /* Start from last cdev id to give HW priority */
> - for (cdev_id = rte_cryptodev_count() - 1; cdev_id >= 0; cdev_id--) {
> + for (cdev_id = 0; cdev_id < rte_cryptodev_count(); cdev_id++) {
> struct rte_cryptodev_info cdev_info;
>
> + if (check_cryptodev_mask((uint8_t)cdev_id))
> + continue;
> +
> rte_cryptodev_info_get(cdev_id, &cdev_info);
>
> if (nb_lcore_params > cdev_info.max_nb_queue_pairs)
> --
> 2.9.3
For the rest, I don't have other objections, so apart from the comment above:
Acked-by: Pablo de Lara <[email protected]>
