From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640441B188 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:27:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA97621F4F; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:27:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=8+LZNezeYym+Pd8XZIz5rK0RL/+5dREhHEP2CdVfjLQ=; b=MGJ33KPEivqP Gf9y1J4L2C18fAEm1HJMHQngX1qQdKVnnq5KbJD9yhHbzHCQ4FnuKnS1lBY5ZxH/ gCOdAlfKhegkVc5sNB161fIVs00P/2qo6aP9PBfS+AcffFfR5VyWXCGaMDA+Cu9z x2nwIx9fkK9JvwePEWAObaVHhPOU/jI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=8+LZNezeYym+Pd8XZIz5rK0RL/+5dREhHEP2CdVfj LQ=; b=Lc+NCZPZZQ6CTJVWw3VgnjszYWNOqm4ay7jOTpxsUr2tjgFIaEAQRDd1d db7F5KAx5Si38uW237RPHDuEdVITwOly5O89axGgEd17Dl1SkF4muL5IBvgPVgaK dsOqWFmmS79FeOeDPxcduwaC1uogFOvuJ7gjccR3qN7HhXZqCg3VHP5hqyuhQ6KF xz5WdbsMdiYVZhOP8SGTnAmc75X/vVx0gdvg0hjDEK8EOdfqG0iOyepdtuxsieqI gUvSgT6yzdCqDhpMmPzInlMmVyCAkrSBZgd4n41VIZH5tJKfwC4kTZG33/M7rxCT kj6pCNOOPe48BE4+tdIvk5Jgb2rFA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 05A57E4240; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:27:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Trahe, Fiona" , "Joseph, Anoob" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Akhil Goyal , Anoob Joseph , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , Murthy NSSR , Jerin Jacob , Narayana Prasad , Ankur Dwivedi , Nithin Dabilpuram , Ragothaman Jayaraman , Srisivasubramanian S , Tejasree Kondoj Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 22:27:55 +0200 Message-ID: <30793843.hyrbbjGcfd@xps> In-Reply-To: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B43589645898@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> <46633655.Q4LKdWAF6e@xps> <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B43589645898@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 09/33] crypto/octeontx: adds symmetric capabilities X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 20:27:59 -0000 08/10/2018 17:59, Trahe, Fiona: > Hi Akhil, Joseph, Thomas, > Just spotted this now. > See below. > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 24/09/2018 13:36, Joseph, Anoob: > > > Hi Fiona, > > > > > > Can you please comment on this? > > > > > > We are adding all capabilities of octeontx-crypto PMD as a macro in > > > otx_cryptodev_capabilites.h file and then we are using it from > > > otx_cryptodev_ops.c. This is the approach followed by QAT crypto PMD. As > > > per my understanding, this is to ensure that cryptodev_ops file remains > > > simple. For other PMDs with fewer number of capabilities, the structure > > > can be populated in the .c file itself without the size of the file > > > coming into the picture. > > > > > > But this would cause checkpatch to report error. Akhil's suggestion is > > > to move the entire definition to a header and include it from the .c > > > file. I believe, the QAT approach was to avoid variable definition in > > > the header. What do you think would be a better approach here? > > > > I think we should avoid adding some code in a .h file. > > And it is even worst when using macros. > > > > I suggest defining the capabilities in a .c file. > > If you don't want to bloat the main .c file, you can create a function > > defined in another .c file. > > > I can't remember all the variations we tried, but there were a few. > I think the macro works well in this case. > What is the issue we need to solve? It is a discussion about best practice. My answer is: avoid long macros and avoid instructions in .h file.