Hi Declan, On 01/12/2016 07:11 PM, Declan Doherty wrote: > In this rfc I'm looking to get some feedback on a proposal to change the > cryptodev burst API from the current implementation of accepting burst > of rte_mbuf's to a burst API based on rte_crypto_op's. > > -static inline uint16_t > -rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id, > - struct rte_mbuf **pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts) > +static inline uint16_t > +rte_cryptodev_dequeue_op_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id, > + struct rte_crypto_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops) > > > -static inline uint16_t > -rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id, > - struct rte_mbuf **pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts) > + static inline uint16_t > +rte_cryptodev_dequeue_op_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id, > + struct rte_crypto_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops) > > > [...] > > Regarding the rte_mbuf_offload library I think that it should be removed > and that we can look adding a more general solution for managing > external metadata to the rte_mbuf library when that functionality is > required.
This looks fine to me. Thanks, Olivier
