From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560786CC4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2016 02:00:22 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,476,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="18411012" Received: from dwdohert-dpdk.ir.intel.com ([163.33.210.152]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2016 02:00:21 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com References: <2254713.m5JxJRtkTJ@xps13> Cc: dev@dpdk.org From: Declan Doherty Message-ID: <2d5bb5ac-dd3a-19c7-9253-961110adc938@intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:53:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2254713.m5JxJRtkTJ@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] OpenSSL libcrypto PMD name X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:00:23 -0000 On 10/10/16 12:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to raise a naming issue in crypto. > > In the crypto side of DPDK, we have a library (similar to ethdev) > for crypto API and device interface: > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_cryptodev > There are also some drivers (which are some libraries): > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/drivers/crypto > Most of them (6/8) are some DPDK wrappers for external libraries. > > Recently was introduced the libcrypto PMD which is a wrapper for > the OpenSSL libcrypto. > As we already have a lot of crypto libraries, I'm afraid the name > libcrypto is really confusing. Why not call it openssl PMD? > > PS: I know OpenSSL has 2 libraries - ssl and crypto - but I do not > expect any high-level SSL feature in a crypto driver. > So drivers/crypto/openssl should not be confusing. > Hey Thomas, I can see the how this could get pretty confusion especially to those not familiar with the implementation details. I think the current name makes sense using the rational that we are only using the libcrypto library from openssl and not libssl but it doesn't make things exactly clear within DPDK. My thought is that we could just call the PMD "base_sw", as this is the function which it is intended to provide, a base implementation of algorithms for which there isn't an optimized/vectorised software implementation or a fall back for systems which don't support the required vector or CPU instructions for the optimized libraries. Also this would allow us at a later date extend beyond the scope of Openssl if required. Declan