From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Declan Doherty Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] crypto/aesni_mb: add new option to select SIMD mode Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 16:05:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1480671985-3677-1-git-send-email-declan.doherty@intel.com> <1480671985-3677-3-git-send-email-declan.doherty@intel.com> <2408315.PI9TjJa4bq@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2FD58DB for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 17:11:27 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2408315.PI9TjJa4bq@xps13> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 02/12/16 10:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-12-02 09:46, Declan Doherty: >> Add new initialisation option to the aesni_mb_pmd to allow the user to specify >> which set of SIMD functions to load from the AESNI Multi-Buffer Crypto for IPsec >> library. > > Why let user choose? Isn't the most recent the better? > > This PMD and other software crypto PMDs could (should?) override the CFLAGS > like rte_acl do, in order to be able to use recent SIMD functions even if it > was globally disabled by the compilation target. > See my comment in the rte_memset thread. > In general yes, I was mainly using this to allow quick performance comparisons between different platforms and different instruction sets on the same platform without recompilation, but I admit that this is probably not a normal end user use case. I'll look at the CFLAGS options you mention and address in a V2.