Hi lads,
>
> Hi Akhil,
>
> Thanks again for the review!
> To summarize, the following places to be changed for v10.
>
> 1. Documentation update and reviewed internally in Intel first.
> 2. Add the missing comments to the structure.
> 3. Change the name "dp_service" to "raw_dp" to all APIs and documentation.
> 4. Change the structure
> struct rte_crypto_sym_vec {
> /** array of SGL vectors */
> struct rte_crypto_sgl *sgl;
>
> union {
> /** Supposed to be used with CPU crypto API call. */
> struct {
> /** array of pointers to IV */
> void **iv;
> /** array of pointers to AAD */
> void **aad;
> /** array of pointers to digest */
> void **digest;
> } cpu_crypto;
> /** Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> struct {
> /** array of pointers to cipher IV */
> void **cipher_iv_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to cipher IV */
> rte_iova_t *cipher_iv_iova;
> /** array of pointers to auth IV */
> void **auth_iv_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to auth IV */
> rte_iova_t *auth_iv_iova;
> /** array of pointers to digest */
> void **digest_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to digest */
> rte_iova_t *digest_iova;
> } hw_chain;
> /** Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> struct {
> /** array of pointers to AEAD IV */
> void **iv_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to AEAD IV */
> rte_iova_t *iv_iova;
> /** array of pointers to AAD */
> void **aad_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to AAD */
> rte_iova_t *aad_iova;
> /** array of pointers to digest */
> void **digest_ptr;
> /** array of IOVA addresses to digest */
> rte_iova_t *digest_iova;
> } hw_aead;
> };
>
> /**
> * array of statuses for each operation:
> * - 0 on success
> * - errno on error
> */
> int32_t *status;
> /** number of operations to perform */
> uint32_t num;
> };
As I understand you just need to add pointers to iova[] for iv, aad and digest,
correct?
If so, why not simply:
struct rte_va_iova_ptr {
void *va;
rte_iova_t *iova;
};
struct rte_crypto_sym_vec {
/** array of SGL vectors */
struct rte_crypto_sgl *sgl;
/** array of pointers to IV */
struct rte_va_iova_ptr iv;
/** array of pointers to AAD */
struct rte_va_iova_ptr aad;
/** array of pointers to digest */
struct rte_va_iova_ptr digest;
/**
* array of statuses for each operation:
* - 0 on success
* - errno on error
*/
int32_t *status;
/** number of operations to perform */
uint32_t num;
};
BTW, it would be both ABI and API breakage,
though all functions using this struct are marked as experimental,
plus it is an LTS release, so it seems to be ok.
Though I think it needs to be flagged in RN.
Another option obviously - introduce completely new structure for it
and leave existing one unaffected.
>
> 5. Remove enum rte_crypto_dp_service, let the PMDs using the session private
> data to decide function handler.
> 6. Remove is_update parameter.
>
> The main point that is uncertain is the existance of "submit_single".
> I am ok to remove "submit_single" function. In VPP we can use
> rte_cryptodev_dp_sym_submit_vec() with vec.num=1 each time to avoid
> double looping.
> But we have to put the rte_cryptodev_dp_sym_submit_vec() as an inline
> function - this will cause the API not traced in version map.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Regards,
> Fan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 PM
> > To: Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev,
> > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> > <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; Dybkowski, AdamX
> > <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com>; Bronowski, PiotrX
> > <piotrx.bronow...@intel.com>; Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev v9 1/4] cryptodev: add crypto data-path service APIs
> >
> > Hi Fan,
> > > Hi AKhil
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > IMO, the following union can clarify all doubts.
> > > > @Ananyev, Konstantin: Any suggestions from your side?
> > > >
> > > > /** IV and aad information for various use cases. */
> > > > union {
> > > > /** Supposed to be used with CPU crypto API call. */
> > > > struct {
> > > > /** array of pointers to IV */
> > > > void **iv;
> > > > /** array of pointers to AAD */
> > > > void **aad;
> > > > /** array of pointers to digest */
> > > > void **digest;
> > > > } cpu_crypto; < or any other useful name>
> > > > /* Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> > > > struct {
> > > > void *cipher_iv_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t cipher_iv_iova;
> > > > void *auth_iv_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t auth_iv_iova;
> > > > void *digest_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t digest_iova;
> > > > } hw_chain;
> > > > /* Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> > > > struct {
> > > > void *iv_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t iv_iova;
> > > > void *digest_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t digest_iova;
> > > > void *aad_ptr;
> > > > rte_iova_t aad_iova;
> > > > } hw_aead;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The above structure cannot support the array of multiple jobs but a single
> > job.
> >
> > So was your previous structure. Was it not tested before?
> >
> > > So we have to use something like
> > >
> > > struct {
> > > void **cipher_iv_ptr;
> >
> > You can even drop _ptr from the name of each of them.
> >
> > > rtei_iova_t *cipher_iv_iova;
> > > ...
> > > } hw_chain;
> > > struct {
> > > void **iv_ptr;
> > > rte_iova_t *iv_iova;
> > > ...
> > > } hw_aead;
> > >
> > > Is it ok?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Fan
