Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add AESNI-MB rawdev for multi-function processing

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

14/04/2020 12:21, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 4/10/2020 11:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Adding more people (crypto PMD maintainers) as Cc.
> > 
> > 10/04/2020 16:27, David Coyle:
> >> Introduction
> >> ============
> >>
> >> This patchset adds a new AESNI-MB Multi-Function raw device PMD for
> >> utilizing multi-function capabilities of the Intel IPSec Multi Buffer
> >> library.
> >>
> >> The aim of this rawdev PMD is to provide a way of combining one or more
> >> common packet-processing functions into a single operation, focused on
> >> DOCSIS and GPON MAC workloads. This allows these functions to be performed
> >> in parallel by the Intel IPSec Multi Buffer library. These functions
> >> include cryptography and CRC/BIP calculations. Performing these functions
> >> in parallel as a single operation can enable a significant performance
> >> improvement.
> > 
> > I don't know crypto but I don't think using rawdev for crypto operations
> > is an API improvement.
> > 
> > Repeating the initial comments from v1 (because got no reply):
> > "
> > As a first impression, I feel it is not the right API.
> > DPDK is based on classes: ethdev, crypto, compress, baseband, regex
> > I want to understand why your features cannot fit in a class.
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I asked similar question, and there is already a detailed answer with some
> background of the issue:

Good to see that you get some reply, Ferruh.

> http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/MN2PR11MB35507D4B96677A41E66440C5E3C30@MN2PR11MB3550.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/

I am not convinced.
I don't like rawdev in general.
Rawdev is good only for hardware support which cannot be generic
like SoC, FPGA management or DMA engine.

Here the intent is to use rawdev because we don't find a good API.
API defeat is a no-go.


> > I feel we will need a lot of time to discuss the design.
> > If you don't see any consensus on the design in the mailing list,
> > you should request an opinion from the Technical Board.
> > 
> > This feature is not a priority for 20.05 release.
> > By the way, it has not been announced in any roadmap.
> > "
> 
> Is it an issue to not have it in the roadmap?

No roadmap is not mandatory.
But having it in the roadmap helps to remind something new will
require long review effort.