On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:26:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-01-09 11:57, Tiwei Bie: > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 08:39:55PM +0800, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > Well my first reply to this thread was asking why isn't the whole API > > > > global > > > > from the start then? > > > > > > That's good question, and my preference would always be to have the > > > API to configure this feature as generic one. > > > I guess the main reason why it is not right now we don't reach an > > > agreement > > > how this API should look like: > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047810.html > > > But I'll leave it to the author to provide the real reason here. > > > > Yes, currently this work just provided a thin layer over 82599's > > hardware MACsec offload support to allow users configure 82599's > > MACsec offload engine. The current API may be too specific and may > > need a rework to be used with other NICs. > > I think it is a really good approach to start such API privately in a driver. > It will give us more time and experience to design a proper generic API. > > Regarding the mbuf flag, it looks straight-forward, and as it is IEEE > standardized, I do not see any objection to add it now. > However, I will wait for the approval of Olivier - as maintainer of mbuf. >
I see. Thank you very much for your comments! :-) Best regards, Tiwei Bie
