From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/33] crypto/octeontx: adds symmetric
	capabilities
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:51:42 +0200
Message-ID: <3230031.dhaMjhjEo9@xps>
References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
 <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B4358965228A@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <SN6PR07MB491116165DFCB99E7CC6493DF8F40@SN6PR07MB4911.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, "De Lara Guarch,
 Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, "Murthy,
 Nidadavolu" <Nidadavolu.Murthy@cavium.com>, "Jacob,
 Jerin" <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>, "Athreya,
 Narayana Prasad" <NarayanaPrasad.Athreya@cavium.com>, "Dwivedi,
 Ankur" <Ankur.Dwivedi@cavium.com>, "Dabilpuram,
 Nithin" <Nithin.Dabilpuram@cavium.com>, "Jayaraman,
 Ragothaman" <Ragothaman.Jayaraman@cavium.com>, "Srinivasan,
 Srisivasubramanian" <Srisivasubramanian.Srinivasan@cavium.com>, "Tejasree,
 Kondoj" <Kondoj.Tejasree@cavium.com>
To: "Joseph, Anoob" <Anoob.Joseph@cavium.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5AA25B3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB491116165DFCB99E7CC6493DF8F40@SN6PR07MB4911.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

22/10/2018 05:49, Joseph, Anoob:
> Hi Fiona,
> 
> I do agree that your solution seems to be a neat way for organizing capabilities. But Akhil & Thomas were against that idea and we had to come up with one array with all capabilities. This would not scale well when we start supporting devices with varying capabilities.
> 
> If your plan is to follow the same approach for asym support, maybe we will also follow suit and submit the required patches.
> 
> @Akhil, Thomas, thoughts?

Generally speaking, macros are bad.

Why cannot you just write functions?
I don't understand your issue.