Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 03/15] crypto/octeontx2: configure for inline IPsec

[Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>]

Hi Jerin,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 1:17 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Declan Doherty
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>;
> Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jerinj@marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathreya@marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda
> <kirankumark@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
> <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>; Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>;
> Archana Muniganti <marchana@marvell.com>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
> <vattunuru@marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik <lbartosik@marvell.com>; dpdk-dev
> <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/15] crypto/octeontx2: configure for
> inline IPsec
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:26 PM Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>
> >
> > For enabling outbound inline IPsec, a CPT queue needs to be tied to a
> > NIX PF_FUNC. Distribute CPT queues fairly among all availble
> > otx2 eth ports.
> >
> > For inbound, one CPT LF will be assigned and initialized by kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Archana Muniganti <marchana@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> 
> >
> > +static int
> > +otx2_cpt_qp_inline_cfg(const struct rte_cryptodev *dev, struct
> > +otx2_cpt_qp *qp) {
> > +       static rte_atomic16_t port_offset = RTE_ATOMIC16_INIT(-1);
> > +       uint16_t port_id, nb_ethport = rte_eth_dev_count_avail();
> > +       int i, ret;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < nb_ethport; i++) {
> > +               port_id = rte_atomic16_add_return(&port_offset, 1) % nb_ethport;
> > +               if (otx2_is_ethdev(&rte_eth_devices[port_id]))
> > +                       break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       if (i >= nb_ethport)
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       ret = otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(dev, qp, port_id);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               return ret;
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> 
> Last five lines can be replaced with "return otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(dev, qp,
> port_id)"

[Anoob] In one of the following patches, one more call would be introduced after the call to otx2_cpt_qp_ethdev_bind(). So the above lines will have to be introduced anyway. For the last such addition, I'll make it return directly. Is that fine? 

> 
> Across the patch series, the above pattern is common, Please fix in all relevant
> instances.