08/10/2018 17:59, Trahe, Fiona: > Hi Akhil, Joseph, Thomas, > Just spotted this now. > See below. > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 24/09/2018 13:36, Joseph, Anoob: > > > Hi Fiona, > > > > > > Can you please comment on this? > > > > > > We are adding all capabilities of octeontx-crypto PMD as a macro in > > > otx_cryptodev_capabilites.h file and then we are using it from > > > otx_cryptodev_ops.c. This is the approach followed by QAT crypto PMD. As > > > per my understanding, this is to ensure that cryptodev_ops file remains > > > simple. For other PMDs with fewer number of capabilities, the structure > > > can be populated in the .c file itself without the size of the file > > > coming into the picture. > > > > > > But this would cause checkpatch to report error. Akhil's suggestion is > > > to move the entire definition to a header and include it from the .c > > > file. I believe, the QAT approach was to avoid variable definition in > > > the header. What do you think would be a better approach here? > > > > I think we should avoid adding some code in a .h file. > > And it is even worst when using macros. > > > > I suggest defining the capabilities in a .c file. > > If you don't want to bloat the main .c file, you can create a function > > defined in another .c file. > > > I can't remember all the variations we tried, but there were a few. > I think the macro works well in this case. > What is the issue we need to solve?
It is a discussion about best practice. My answer is: avoid long macros and avoid instructions in .h file.
