>-----Original Message----- >From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: 02 February 2018 14:38 >To: Verma, Shally <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal ><[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]>; >[email protected]; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; Griffin, >John <[email protected]>; Jain, Deepak K ><[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >[email protected]; [email protected]; >[email protected]; Jacob, Jerin <[email protected]>; >Athreya, Narayana Prasad ><[email protected]>; Murthy, Nidadavolu ><[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for crypto info struct > >Hi Shally, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:54 AM >> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal >> <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; >> Griffin, John <[email protected]>; Jain, Deepak K >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacob, >> Jerin <[email protected]>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad >> <[email protected]>; Murthy, Nidadavolu >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for crypto info >> struct >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:[email protected]] >> >Sent: 30 January 2018 16:51 >> >To: Verma, Shally <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal >> ><[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]>; >> >[email protected]; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; >> >Griffin, John <[email protected]>; Jain, Deepak K >> ><[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> >[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacob, >> >Jerin <[email protected]>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad >> ><[email protected]>; Murthy, Nidadavolu >> ><[email protected]> >> >Cc: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for crypto >> >info struct >> > >> >Hi Shally/Ahkil, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Verma, Shally >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:56 AM >> >> To: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo >> >> <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona >> >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Doherty, Declan >> >> <[email protected]>; Griffin, John <[email protected]>; >> >> Jain, Deepak K <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> >> [email protected]; Jacob, Jerin >> >> <[email protected]>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad >> >> <[email protected]>; Murthy, Nidadavolu >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for crypto >> >> info struct >> >> >> >> I do see current cryptodev unit testcase (inside \test dir) uses >> >> info.sym.max_nb_sessions param for session mempool_create. So, such >> >> testcases change are also in proposal? >> > >> >Yes, for these tests, we can just define a macro in the tests, instead of >> using the info structure. >> >> [Shally] Ok, then you mean applications will choose any random number >> during mempool_create and not dependent on device max_nb_sessions? > >Yes, actually for the unit tests, even one session is enough. > >> >> >> >> >> Another point, we recently submitted an RFC patch on lib/cryptodev >> >> with asymmetric crypto support >> >> (https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/34308/) which is awaiting >> >> review and these fields have role to play there. >> >> So, could this change be please viewed in conjunction with asym RFC? >> > >> >Do you need it for asymmetric? Anyway, this would remove the >> symmetric function and structures, not applicable for you. >> >> [Shally] I would say addition of asym in lib/cryptodev is not entirely >> standalone, specifically for PMDs that can support both. >> My key concern are max_nb_sessions_per_qp and related >> qp_attach_sym/asym APIs which enable management of queue distribution >> among sym and asym in current proposal, specifically, for PMDs that can >> support both but have dedicated qp for each. Right now proposal is open >> for feedback and would prefer to be covered before sym related changes >> could be applied. > >Actually, I have been thinking about this. Given the time we have until 18.02 >is out, >and that this is not urgent to be applied (this is just code cleanup), >I am postponing this until next release. > [Shally] Ok. Thanks for acknowledging this.
>My other reason is that the info structure has a rte_pci_device pointer which >should be removed. >However, I believe it is better to leave it for next release and discuss it >with other libraries which has this, like ethdev. > >Thanks, >Pablo
