Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] cryptodev: support enqueue and dequeue callback functions

["Kinsella, Ray" <ray.kinsella@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday 20 January 2021 13:16
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Kinsella, Ray
> <ray.kinsella@intel.com>; mdr@ashroe.eu
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
> Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; aconole@redhat.com;
> david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] cryptodev: support enqueue and
> dequeue callback functions
> 
> 20/01/2021 14:01, Kinsella, Ray:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 15/01/2021 17:01, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > This patch adds APIs to add/remove callback functions on crypto
> > > > > enqueue/dequeue burst. The callback function will be called for
> > > each
> > > > > burst of crypto ops received/sent on a given crypto device
> queue
> > > > > pair.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Gujjar <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > Series applied to dpdk-next-crypto
> > >
> > >
> > > It is missing a rule to ignore the false positive ABI break:
> > >
> > > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > @@ -11,3 +11,8 @@
> > >  ; Explicit ignore for driver-only ABI  [suppress_type]
> > >          name = eth_dev_ops
> > > +
> > > +; Ignore fields inserted in cacheline boundary of rte_cryptodev
> > > +[suppress_type]
> > > +        name = rte_cryptodev
> > > +        has_data_member_inserted_between = {0, 1023}
> > >
> >
> > This is a bit of a blunt instrument as the range quiet large?
> 
> The range is in bits. It matches the actual size of the struct for 64B
> cacheline.

Ok

> 
> > {offset_after(attached), end} instead works better - I will send a
> patch.
> 
> Yes that's exactly what David told me earlier today.

Makes sense, I think.

> 
> > > I'll add this change while pulling in the main tree.
> 
> Yes please.
> Note: we missed requiring this exception rule in the original patch.

Ok, in the next 20 minutes or so.