> Hi Akhil, > > 09/11/2023 22:01, Akhil Goyal: > > Added a new application based on l2fwd to demonstrate inline protocol > > offload MACsec performance using rte_security APIs. > > In general we try to avoid adding a new example application. > Does this one has been discussed already with the techboard? > We need a good justification for an exception. > Why not merging it in l2fwd-crypto? > L2fwd-crypto is based on rte_crypto sessions and l2fwd-macsec is based on rte_security session. We have application for IPsec, and adding a new one for MACsec is also fine in my opinion. We can add more MACsec protocol stuff in the new application in future. The goal is to have a full-fledged MACsec application like ipsec-secgw. But while adding in l2fwd-crypto will limit us from adding protocol stuff in it. L2fwd-crypto is a very basic benchmarking application with no Protocol stuff/checks to get maximum raw crypto performance. Adding MACsec in it would corrupt its basic nature.
The application is not discussed in techboard but the patch is there on ML for more than 3 months with no comments. If we have objections, we can push it for next release or else it would be good to add it in current release only. The patch is pushed to crypto tree for now as we have RC3 deadline today. You may remove the patch while pulling on main.
