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

["Zhang, Roy Fan" <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>]

Hi Akhil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Akhil Goyal
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:44 PM
> To: Coyle, David <david.coyle@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>;
> Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
> Cc: techboard@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Ryan, Brendan
> <brendan.ryan@intel.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>;
> Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>; Liron Himi <lironh@marvell.com>; Nagadheeraj
> Rottela <rnagadheeraj@marvell.com>; Srikanth Jampala
> <jsrikanth@marvell.com>; Gagandeep Singh <G.Singh@nxp.com>; Jay Zhou
> <jianjay.zhou@huawei.com>; Ravi Kumar <ravi1.kumar@amd.com>;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; olivier.matz@6wind.com;
> honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com; Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@networkplumber.org>; alexr@mellanox.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add AESNI-MB rawdev for multi-
> function processing
...
> Yes, it is preferred, but it should be a union to
> rte_crypto_sym_op/rte_crypto_asym_op.
> Crypto_op->type as RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SECURITY and sess_type as
> RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SECURITY_SESSION
> The size of rte_crypto_op will remain as is and there will be no ABI breakage I
> guess.
> 
[Fan: with this way the PMD will have to do rte_crypto_op.type check, and then look into rte_security_op field, only when it find the security_op type is crypto_crc, it will process the security_op data. Would that being too many reads and checking for a single op? Can we create a new API for rte_security to process rte_security_ops for Crypto_CRC or future needs?]
...
 
Regards,
Fan