From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E24A3160 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:23:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3461EB2B; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:23:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F95C1EB26 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:23:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F5B21F41; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:23:27 -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=QZFGlwWRQhIZVs6A2AM4XK/4ByFQU5lg52OA+1NdwDE=; b=eG+HdvhiySrM Mai/pPDGAo7inMSgfljnJASM7C73pIZlLt7DjqtYl7tiXbPk7SOhLmIEQ1StL+bn 1ywId/Dby1S/+W+PupjBI2UcLKC1osuGb3BNDyocTFbdkosJnoxF+7AtL2/L6jMJ mVn717bnk+NXxH+r4s9FtqlNjXUpcU0= 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=fm1; bh=QZFGlwWRQhIZVs6A2AM4XK/4ByFQU5lg52OA+1Ndw DE=; b=U6zNkgWRFExQnLfIvhBrMNTIaPnunvOuMBge/kt0zC5oiFx/k+bApwnOI /vxAxuWgLtP5UtexAPfX9+tWuAdHOSYRQYKqnkgjsp7vzW/MYAJi+mrR4J/5WZP3 OnnI35HrjHaZ+EM1VNzpfZR6hLWvIuG68hm9MOmYWshde9qoWEZYejzls1puDEN1 jKq9SdS9UDzWl89tu077cwfoz1ltWjIgHkhdmdQUPDwPB8Op8iA1rJb1IO5RDp67 sY/clLroImBuonL13YhQCD9U6XJ6gV2POFE1XYgyQKMW2C6lzs7fIuGV27QvIfKj jj/Hv6yTX8dY47uVCtC/GKcfT3vnA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrieehgdeklecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrdduheegrddvvdehrdduhedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (151.225.154.77.rev.sfr.net [77.154.225.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3566FD60067; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:23:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Akhil Goyal Cc: Bernard Iremonger , "dev@dpdk.org" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , "anoobj@marvell.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:23:22 +0200 Message-ID: <5630388.AILYuOXkcA@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1567069173-10505-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1569943080-20228-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: set default 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/10/2019 14:40, Akhil Goyal: > Hi All, > > This patchset would need ack from more vendors as it will impact user experience > on a key example application which is normally demonstrated to customers. > > IPSec library is still evolving and there are new functionality added every release. > Atleast from NXP side we are not OK with this change. What can be changed in the library to make it acceptable as a default in this example?