Hi Thomas,
I had replaced macro with functions when I revised the patch. But when more
devices (with varying capabilities) need to be supported, this can get
complicated. Macro approach would be simpler in that case. Right now QAT has
macros and we would like to stick to what is being followed in the community.
Following would be the use case for macros,
#define QAT_BASE_GEN1_SYM_CAPABILITIES, \
{ CAPABILITES, \
... \
}
#define QAT_EXTRA_GEN2_SYM_CAPABILITIES \
{ CAPABILITES, \
... \
}
static const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities qat_gen1_sym_capabilities[] = {
QAT_BASE_GEN1_SYM_CAPABILITIES,
RTE_CRYPTODEV_END_OF_CAPABILITIES_LIST()
};
static const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities qat_gen2_sym_capabilities[] = {
QAT_BASE_GEN1_SYM_CAPABILITIES,
QAT_EXTRA_GEN2_SYM_CAPABILITIES,
RTE_CRYPTODEV_END_OF_CAPABILITIES_LIST()
};
Without the macros, we will be required to populate the array there itself and
would mean repetition of GEN1 capabilities. Either approach is fine for us, but
this could complicate things when we add support for ASYM. Since QAT is already
doing this, is it fine to move to that approach as we add support for ASYM? Or
if QAT is to follow any other scheme, I'm fine with adopting that as well.
Whatever is simple and uniform would work.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: 22 October 2018 12:22
> To: Joseph, Anoob <anoob.jos...@cavium.com>
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Akhil Goyal
> <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Murthy, Nidadavolu
> <nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad
> <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>; Dwivedi, Ankur
> <ankur.dwiv...@cavium.com>; Dabilpuram, Nithin
> <nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com>; Jayaraman, Ragothaman
> <ragothaman.jayara...@cavium.com>; Srinivasan, Srisivasubramanian
> <srisivasubramanian.sriniva...@cavium.com>; Tejasree, Kondoj
> <kondoj.tejas...@cavium.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 09/33] crypto/octeontx: adds symmetric
> capabilities
>
> External Email
>
> 22/10/2018 05:49, Joseph, Anoob:
> > Hi Fiona,
> >
> > I do agree that your solution seems to be a neat way for organizing
> capabilities. But Akhil & Thomas were against that idea and we had to come up
> with one array with all capabilities. This would not scale well when we start
> supporting devices with varying capabilities.
> >
> > If your plan is to follow the same approach for asym support, maybe we will
> also follow suit and submit the required patches.
> >
> > @Akhil, Thomas, thoughts?
>
> Generally speaking, macros are bad.
>
> Why cannot you just write functions?
> I don't understand your issue.
>
