-----Original Message----- > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 18:52:02 +0000 > From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > CC: "Gujjar, Abhinandan S" <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" > <dev@dpdk.org>, "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Rao, > Nikhil" <nikhil....@intel.com>, "hemant.agra...@nxp.com" > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "Doherty, Declan" <declan.dohe...@intel.com>, > "nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com" <nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>, > "nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com" <nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com>, > "narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com" <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com> > Subject: RE: [RFC] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 8:49 PM > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com> > > Cc: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil > > <nikhil....@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Doherty, Declan > > <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com; > > nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com; narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com > > Subject: Re: [RFC] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:35:48 +0000 > > > From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com> > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, "Gujjar, Abhinandan S" > > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > > > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Vangati, Narender" > > > <narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil....@intel.com>, > > > "hemant.agra...@nxp.com" <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "Doherty, Declan" > > > <declan.dohe...@intel.com>, "nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com" > > > <nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>, "nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com" > > > <nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com>, "narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com" > > > <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com> > > > Subject: RE: [RFC] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header > > > > > > Hey Jerin, > > > > Hey Gage, > > > > > > > > </snip> > > > > > > > > + > > > > > + /** > > > > > + * @warning > > > > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this enum may change without prior notice > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Crypto event adapter type > > > > > + */ > > > > > +enum rte_event_crypto_adapter_type { > > > > > + RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_ONLY = 1, > > > > > + /**< Start only Rx part of crypto adapter. > > > > > + * Packets dequeued from cryptodev are new to eventdev and > > > > > + * events will be treated as RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW */ > > > > > + RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_TX, > > > > > + /**< Start both Rx & Tx part of crypto adapter. > > > > > + * Packet's event context will be retained and > > > > > + * event will be treated as RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD */ }; > > > > > > > > How about leveraging ev.op based schematics as mentioned above? > > > > > > That could work, but perhaps the ev.op should be configured once up > > > front, as > > I see it being a function of the application architecture. A couple possible > > designs, for example: > > > - Worker enqueues into cryptodev, adapter polls for response: the adapter > > port would always use OP_NEW here. > > > - Worker sends a crypto request event to the adapter, which gives the > > > request to the cryptodev and polls for response: the adapter port > > > would always use OP_FWD here. (This ties in with my implicit release > > > patch (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-December/083535.html)) > > > - Etc. > > > > Yes. Semantically both approaches will work. I was trying to avoid extra > > clutter(enum rte_event_crypto_adapter_type) in adapter API. > > I don't see any problem in moving ev.op to adapter configuration time if it > > helps > > the SW driver. > > > > IMO, We can change RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_ONLY and > > RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_RX_TX to more appropriate name, something > > like, > > RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_TYPE_OP_NEW/RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTE > > R_TYPE_OP_FWD > > or something like that. > > > > I agree that the two naming schemes are equivalent, but since this option > would control the adapter's behavior (Rx only vs. Rx + Tx), (IMO) I think > Abhinandan's original names do a better job of conveying what effect these > two options have on the adapter, compared to the op type names.
The only concern with Rx/Tx terminology was, It is mostly used in the ethdev domain. In crypto domain, typically, we use enqueue/dequeue. The only difference between two modes is if adapter enqueue the events with RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW vs RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD then (IMO) we can change something related to that name to avoid adding a new terminology. BTW, Based on the earlier discussion, if we need to add opaque eventdev metadata to cryptodev then it may change ABI.If so, I think, we need to announce ABI change notice for cryptodev and plan cryptodev adapter for v18.05.
