From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cryptodev: Change burst APIs to crypto
	operation oriented
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:31:34 +0100
Message-ID: <569CF746.5060605@6wind.com>
References: <569541C2.60302@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508138D97
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:31:40 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <569541C2.60302@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi Declan,

On 01/12/2016 07:11 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
> In this rfc I'm looking to get some feedback on a proposal to change the
> cryptodev burst API from the current implementation of accepting burst
> of rte_mbuf's to a burst API based on rte_crypto_op's.
> 
> -static inline uint16_t
> -rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id,
> -               struct rte_mbuf **pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts)
> +static inline uint16_t
> +rte_cryptodev_dequeue_op_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id,
> +               struct rte_crypto_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops)
> 
> 
> -static inline uint16_t
> -rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id,
> -               struct rte_mbuf **pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts)
> + static inline uint16_t
> +rte_cryptodev_dequeue_op_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t qp_id,
> +               struct rte_crypto_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops)
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Regarding the rte_mbuf_offload library I think that it should be removed
> and that we can look adding a more general solution for managing
> external metadata to the rte_mbuf library when that functionality is
> required.

This looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Olivier