From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D3EA00BE; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792E64068E; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1756940687 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:37:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C12C5C0166; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:37:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1650364670; x= 1650451070; bh=f6z1Xx9xTtaauh1pZ7rY1P6L7n+8yFBMuIGcD+XShSQ=; b=T ADIilZS9Ad3Bo8aNZBhjrTZoUF9g3jo7E1onv88jDOGw4Bk8VIVY5ROS7HoFUQ9n kAeuEnsGNGOcO6jzXYyiHu+8OvbhNQx2Kndn0snmNqsHWtIpF6sYRpcKIWKxnfLg vUubYDtqrlrXxDffqIPbxeIZmr0RjMm86XuxiqLJMJaslwD8epgxTA/jo9jp6row u1gEIXYImGCaXVXQHkTxqaAI1UjenF3RnO4yOz3pbT2iDEo/F+bXlIiPRFwxJujt 5alv7Duq6MIqSUOXhamVjmw02m6wAR8irWyUmG81fq21hRBz1iwS6V7yT2iBJBE2 7BILuUFUOaX0PvIh958mw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1650364670; x=1650451070; bh=f6z1Xx9xTtaau h1pZ7rY1P6L7n+8yFBMuIGcD+XShSQ=; b=LzZ4LGWfRqDywM1I7/OzRqyAvpkE4 AryxkcZWJr/7CR9zmPEEx2So+ODpJmoOCd21Eg0OaYnEmiy5uZAGd/Q1S7XugJwf XzoW2+bmsWAJlUuxIDBObcPqs5yIzCEmtKgWrV9nHPmOOjmDBNUoTgiDlHzLPCzY nHA+xrzUAy05E9niy3wD36aOWmtBlGqigqMfPYEFNmXnngd6YlTHxTQ8RwnkThTQ i1WT2aaGHfnXRhlwO7vHaGhbcjgNFup0QwqtntMPEMNOxLjMCQ+7k73yye26Op9H GHVTxISbt+TPPt9FqlqCFaFYOQyeP+lc42FUX0+Ljxcg137OS5RLQ89Pg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrvddtfedgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdevkeetgfduffektdegudekleegfeevvdekffevgefhheekhfef hefghefhffegnecuffhomhgrihhnpegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:37:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Anoob Joseph Cc: Akhil Goyal , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , "ciara.power@intel.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" , Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram , Vamsi Krishna Attunuru Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] ethdev: add IPsec SA expiry event subtypes Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:37:46 +0200 Message-ID: <5813217.lOV4Wx5bFT@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220217172341.607360-1-gakhil@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 19/04/2022 12:19, Anoob Joseph: > Hi Thomas, Akhil, > > > Is there a reference explaining what exactly is a "soft packet expiry"? > > The SA lifetime/expiry is described in security library. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/latest/source/lib/security/rte_security.h#L295 The comment you are referencing is using "soft" for all limits, even for packets_hard_limit and bytes_hard_limit. It seems these comments need to be fixed.