From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce ABI change for cryptodev and ethdev Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 19:41:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2679300.3rDZ1MV7ox@xps> References: <20170803153211.23073-1-akhil.goyal@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Hemant Agrawal , Akhil Goyal , declan.doherty@intel.com, radu.nicolau@intel.com, aviadye@mellanox.com, borisp@mellanox.com, pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com To: dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5A52C4F for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 19:41:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/08/2017 07:26, Hemant Agrawal: > On 8/3/2017 9:02 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: > > Support for security operations is planned to be added > > in ethdev and cryptodev for the 17.11 release. > > > > For this following changes are required. > > - rte_cryptodev and rte_eth_dev structures need to be added > > new parameter rte_security_ops which extend support for > > security ops to the corresponding driver. > > - rte_cryptodev_info and rte_ethd_dev_info need to be added > > with rte_security_capabilities to identify the capabilities of > > the corresponding driver. It is not explained what is the fundamental difference between rte_security and rte_crypto? It looks to be just a technical workaround. Why the ABI would be changed by rte_security additions? > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal > > > Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal No more opinions outside of NXP? It seems there is not yet a consensus on how to manage IPsec offloading. I heard there were some phone calls about these stuff but nothing clear appears publicly on the mailing list. Looks to be a community failure.