27/10/2020 03:01, Wang, Haiyue: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > For ixgbe PMD, > > Acked-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com> > > But I feel that 'rte_security_dynfield' name is too generic, can it be > more specific about what the field is used for ? > > Like below ;-) > > #define RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA(m) \ > RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD((m), \ > rte_security_dev_metadata_offset, \ > RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA_TYPE *)
Yes rte_security_dynfield is too much generic, as well as RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA. It seems there are different data stored in this field. We should have different fields for different data. But such cleanup is another step for someone else.
