Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] cryptodev: update fast path APIs to use new flat array

[Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>]

> > @@ -1832,13 +1832,18 @@ static inline uint16_t
> >  rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id,
> >  		struct rte_crypto_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops)
> >  {
> > -	struct rte_cryptodev *dev = &rte_cryptodevs[dev_id];
> > +	const struct rte_crypto_fp_ops *fp_ops;
> > +	void *qp;
> >
> >  	rte_cryptodev_trace_dequeue_burst(dev_id, qp_id, (void **)ops,
> nb_ops);
> > -	nb_ops = (*dev->dequeue_burst)
> > -			(dev->data->queue_pairs[qp_id], ops, nb_ops);
> > +
> > +	fp_ops = &rte_crypto_fp_ops[dev_id];
> > +	qp = fp_ops->qp.data[qp_id];
> > +
> > +	nb_ops = fp_ops->dequeue_burst(qp, ops, nb_ops);
> > +
> >  #ifdef RTE_CRYPTO_CALLBACKS
> > -	if (unlikely(dev->deq_cbs != NULL)) {
> > +	if (unlikely(fp_ops->qp.deq_cb != NULL)) {
> >  		struct rte_cryptodev_cb_rcu *list;
> >  		struct rte_cryptodev_cb *cb;
> 
> As I ca see you decided to keep call-back related data-structs as public API.
> I wonder that's to avoid extra changes with CB related code?
> Or performance reasons?
> Or probably something else?
I just wanted to avoid extra changes and it did not look that important at this point
Compared to other patches.
I would have done the changes if I had some more time.