Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/10] ethdev: introduce MACSEC device ops

[Igor Russkikh <Igor.Russkikh@aquantia.com>]

>>>>> These are new ethdev APIs, not driver code, that have been sent after rc1, so
>>>>> these didn't go through a proper review cycle, we didn't get any comment on any
>>>>> other possible driver can use it, I am for postponing the series to next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also there are some mechanical issues [1] but main thing is adding a set of API
>>>>> to late in release cycle without proper review.
>>>> I see, that's reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest another option then: can we do driver only API (almost like ixgbe providing now)?
>>>> Two points here:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Thomas raised a reasonable question whether all the macsec control in general should happen
>>>> through the rte_security set of APIs. This obviously could be done, but with proper design
>>>> of rte_security structures and ops.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Aquantia is interested in having macsec control code in driver within 19.05, even in form
>>>> of private driver API as it runs in ixgbe now. This code is functional and will not be
>>>> changed alot anyway. It could be easily adopted later when point (1) gets a conclusion.
>>>>
>>> If there is a commitment to work on a generic solution for 19.08, involving
>>> other users too, I would be OK to get the support as PMD API for this release.
>>>
>>> If that is accepted, please bu sure too add experimental tag to new PMD APIs and
>>> even add to release notes about intention and that the PMD specific APIs are
>>> temporary. And if ABI breakage required, put any necessary deprecation notice
>>> withing this release scope so that the development is not blocked for next release.
>>>
>>> Thomas, Andrew, what do you think?
>>
>> I agree.
> 
> +1

Great, I'll prepare v2 patchset then. Will also start on prototyping possible
rte_security macsec API.

Regards,
  Igor