From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82781A053B; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:32:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27B1C0BC; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:32:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E7E1C0B9 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:32:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF856216CA; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 06:32:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=0r77kQuO+qF9XbCnSPpfCZAumK7S2UaYEvEPoUUkebs=; b=G8wi7If5hpLs 09GYYAzLF+ERQtaNbfsik5K8Xz15nfFcpO+Uyz5wVmoXA5u3yb74e1j+ykT815Bz WqWbN8wQuF8P8iDjitT3KDsdnUF94FKeypbnSUO2Ab4K85szjw3ZnyjUeZIStzA9 WfIDASBZ1nNBGRCCBfBDaMDyU3Ys7ow= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=0r77kQuO+qF9XbCnSPpfCZAumK7S2UaYEvEPoUUke bs=; b=APCeNCmHZ7uJGp45rmvkinc+N9XqBjm/RxjZ2TRAWSBT+9Q+XbekI7a7q nKvIpnwuMNmR008RmbEe8kFfTtVhvg7Hi4slQRi1jeXkgbl8fIv0cK/NBz2swwfH W6ZA2uR9D+sArYtCR2QOeM0oKFEMQIMFVe7iU/t+rqTwjyoy68tnSupSf1XvyP+f Ws55iI0TTqJhH8/8nIi0SeuAUXaRK4jbuhzbk+fR8gaRs/7ceyafHOW8rIvJLJF9 Iv0gCzp8lQv3y5KbT79fTg6VWK7ADbNXFVKnaNNoqVowVDQ51hUFZdz0W5Yjx/6I ldlFgc6ftyNxkxMdnWLhJ5flnmk8A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrheefgddvkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B25C530605C8; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:32:17 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Anoob Joseph Cc: Akhil Goyal , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Nicolau, Radu" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Lukas Bartosik , Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:32:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3047181.G96rZvMJ2N@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1578667598-18942-1-git-send-email-anoobj@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: increase number of qps to lcore_params X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 06/02/2020 11:46, Anoob Joseph: > Hi Akhil, > > > > > @Akhil, do you have any comments? > > > > > > > > Also, I think we should make it > > > > ,,,, > > > > > > > Looks good to me, but I believe this would need more changes and > > > testing in event patches. > > > Also it does not have any changes for lookaside cases. > > > Can we move this to next release and add lookaside case as well in a > > > single go. > > > > [Anoob] Not a problem. I'll defer this to next release then. > > This patch is not part of the event additions to ipsec-segcw. This patch is required to handle few corner cases, but is equally applicable to lookaside crypto as well. I had agreed to only deferring this patch. > > Lukasz is preparing v4 of event mode patches with doc update and addressing one minor comment from Konstantin. If the event ipsec-secgw patches are not getting merged for this release, can you confirm it will be merged immediately after this release? I'm assuming you have finished the reviews as the patch was submitted early in this release cycle. Akhil, as all other tree maintainers, is doing its best. Akhil is doing a great job, and had a lot of work in this release cycle. Please be patient.