On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 01:22:09PM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:41 AM > > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal > > <gak...@marvell.com>; Ji, Kai <kai...@intel.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com>; > > dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; Dooley, > > Brian <brian.doo...@intel.com>; Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>; > > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/qat: fix build > > > > 12/01/2023 11:32, Ji, Kai: > > > Ok, a long story short, this issue should only occurred when > > RTE_QAT_LIBIPSECMB is enabled. > > > It was intend to remove Openssl lib dependency in QAT replaced with > > > ipsec_mb lib, but the work was partially done due to limitation of > > > ipsec_mb by the time (FIPS certification) > > > > > > I'm happy with current fix and please cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > I'm not happy with this fix. It is a dirty workaround. > > It would be better to have an #ifdef in ipsec_mb. > > > > Also I would like an answer to the question below. What triggered this > > error? > > Is it a new thing in the lib ipsec_mb? > > Why defining AES_BLOCK_SIZE while IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE can be used and > > have a proper prefix? > > Apologies for the late response. > > This macro was renamed to IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE, as you already know. > The problem is that, for compatibility reasons, we had to keep the old macro > as well.
doesn't this mean the compat could have been retained with a simple check? #ifndef AES_BLOCK_SIZE #define AES_BLOCK_SIZE IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE #endif anyway, you can ignore this comment if you already worked out a solution on the mail thread.
