Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/10] ethdev: introduce MACSEC device ops

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

16/04/2019 11:58, Andrew Rybchenko:
> On 4/16/19 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 4/13/2019 8:24 AM, Igor Russkikh wrote:
> >> Hi Ferruh,
> >>
> >>>> +int
> >>>> +rte_eth_macsec_select_txsa(uint16_t port_id,
> >>>> +			   uint8_t idx, uint8_t an,
> >>>> +			   uint32_t pn, uint8_t *key);
> >>>> +
> >>>>   
> >>>>   #include <rte_ethdev_core.h>
> >>>>   
> >>> These are new ethdev APIs, not driver code, that have been sent after rc1, so
> >>> these didn't go through a proper review cycle, we didn't get any comment on any
> >>> other possible driver can use it, I am for postponing the series to next release.
> >>>
> >>> Also there are some mechanical issues [1] but main thing is adding a set of API
> >>> to late in release cycle without proper review.
> >> I see, that's reasonable.
> >>
> >> May I suggest another option then: can we do driver only API (almost like ixgbe providing now)?
> >> Two points here:
> >>
> >> 1) Thomas raised a reasonable question whether all the macsec control in general should happen
> >> through the rte_security set of APIs. This obviously could be done, but with proper design
> >> of rte_security structures and ops.
> >>
> >> 2) Aquantia is interested in having macsec control code in driver within 19.05, even in form
> >> of private driver API as it runs in ixgbe now. This code is functional and will not be
> >> changed alot anyway. It could be easily adopted later when point (1) gets a conclusion.
> >>
> > If there is a commitment to work on a generic solution for 19.08, involving
> > other users too, I would be OK to get the support as PMD API for this release.
> >
> > If that is accepted, please bu sure too add experimental tag to new PMD APIs and
> > even add to release notes about intention and that the PMD specific APIs are
> > temporary. And if ABI breakage required, put any necessary deprecation notice
> > withing this release scope so that the development is not blocked for next release.
> >
> > Thomas, Andrew, what do you think?
> 
> I agree.

+1