16/04/2019 11:58, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 4/16/19 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 4/13/2019 8:24 AM, Igor Russkikh wrote: > >> Hi Ferruh, > >> > >>>> +int > >>>> +rte_eth_macsec_select_txsa(uint16_t port_id, > >>>> + uint8_t idx, uint8_t an, > >>>> + uint32_t pn, uint8_t *key); > >>>> + > >>>> > >>>> #include <rte_ethdev_core.h> > >>>> > >>> 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
