12/04/2019 10:50, Igor Russkikh: > > >>> Please can you explain how it is related to rte_security? > >> > >> It is not. > >> Do you mean macsec control API could be moved and logically be a part of > >> rte_security api? > >> I can't comment now on how feasible is this. Moreover this depends on how > >> Intel considers > >> and uses the existing macsec offload in ixgbe. > > > > There are RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_MACSEC and rte_security_macsec_* structs > > in librte_security. > > Please check how it can be used while defining an ethdev API. > > There is nothing in rte_security defined explicitly for macsec except that > enum item. > All the macsec structures are dummy. Was there any intent to implement this? > > I can writeup the generic macsec structures for rte_security, do you think > that's feasible?
I don't know. We are in front of a case of dead code written well too far in advance. Akhil, any suggestion?
