26/10/2017 15:16, Akhil Goyal: > On 10/26/2017 6:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/10/2017 14:59, Akhil Goyal: > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> On 10/26/2017 6:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 26/10/2017 14:28, Radu Nicolau: > >>>> > >>>> On 10/26/2017 12:39 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> 26/10/2017 13:27, David Marchand: > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/26/2017 11:36 AM, David Marchand wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Radu Nicolau > >>>>>>>> <radu.nico...@intel.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/Makefile > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/Makefile > >>>>>>>>> +ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),clean) > >>>>>>>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY),y) > >>>>>>>>> +$(error "RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY is required to build > >>>>>>>>> RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD") > >>>>>>>>> +endif > >>>>>>>>> +endif > >>>>>>>> This is a no go for me unless you explain how it is impossible to > >>>>>>>> disable it in the code. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It can be disabled in the code, but as far as I know there is a > >>>>>>> general push > >>>>>>> back against having conditionally compiled code. I originally had the > >>>>>>> security sections in ixgbe PMD isolated, but the feedback was to have > >>>>>>> them > >>>>>>> always on. > >>>>>> In my mind, this was to stop having features enabled per pmd (and stop > >>>>>> the nightmare with 10 options in a pmd). > >>>>>> Having features globally enabled for all or nothing is still > >>>>>> acceptable, is it not ? > >>>>> Yes there is a config option for rte_security, > >>>>> and it is acceptable. > >>>>> The code depending on it must be ifdef'ed. > >>>> > >>>> Given that both ixgbe and dpaa2_sec are now security enabled PMDs, I > >>>> would go with Konstantin's proposal, have rte_security listed as a > >>>> dependency (instead of the explicit check). > >>> > >>> Please consider my request instead. > >>> Until now we are ifdef'ing code to allow disabling any lib. > >>> We are not going to change our mind during the last days of a release. > >>> Please just fix it for now. > >> > >> For dpaa2_sec we do not want to make the driver run without > >> rte_security. We do not see people using it without rte_security. > > > > Why not? > We see a lot of performance difference in the two cases. People may not > like to see a lower performance for the same protocol processing. > > > > >> Will take the Makefile changes that Radu has done in 1st patch of this > >> series. > > > > Is it really a lot to ifdef? > As I see it would be around 12-13 checks in 2 files. > > > > It is going to break compilation of DPDK for those who disable rte_security. > > > > Well I would say, if people do not need rte_security then they can > disable dpaa2_sec_pmd also.
OK
