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, 08 Oct 2018 22:27:55 +0200
Message-ID: <30793843.hyrbbjGcfd@xps>
References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
 <46633655.Q4LKdWAF6e@xps>
 <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B43589645898@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
 Anoob Joseph <ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com>, "De Lara Guarch,
 Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
 Murthy NSSR <nidadavolu.murthy@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Ankur Dwivedi <ankur.dwivedi@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Nithin Dabilpuram <nithin.dabilpuram@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Ragothaman Jayaraman <rjayaraman@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Srisivasubramanian S <ssrinivasan@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Tejasree Kondoj <kondoj.tejasree@caviumnetworks.com>
To: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>, "Joseph,
 Anoob" <Anoob.Joseph@caviumnetworks.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 640441B188
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  8 Oct 2018 22:27:59 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B43589645898@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.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>

08/10/2018 17:59, Trahe, Fiona:
> Hi Akhil, Joseph, Thomas,
> Just spotted this now.
> See below.
> 
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 24/09/2018 13:36, Joseph, Anoob:
> > > Hi Fiona,
> > >
> > > Can you please comment on this?
> > >
> > > We are adding all capabilities of octeontx-crypto PMD as a macro in
> > > otx_cryptodev_capabilites.h file and then we are using it from
> > > otx_cryptodev_ops.c. This is the approach followed by QAT crypto PMD. As
> > > per my understanding, this is to ensure that cryptodev_ops file remains
> > > simple. For other PMDs with fewer number of capabilities, the structure
> > > can be populated in the .c file itself without the size of the file
> > > coming into the picture.
> > >
> > > But this would cause checkpatch to report error. Akhil's suggestion is
> > > to move the entire definition to a header and include it from the .c
> > > file. I believe, the QAT approach was to avoid variable definition in
> > > the header. What do you think would be a better approach here?
> > 
> > I think we should avoid adding some code in a .h file.
> > And it is even worst when using macros.
> > 
> > I suggest defining the capabilities in a .c file.
> > If you don't want to bloat the main .c file, you can create a function
> > defined in another .c file.
> > 
> I can't remember all the variations we tried, but there were a few.
> I think the macro works well in this case. 
> What is the issue we need to solve?

It is a discussion about best practice.
My answer is: avoid long macros and avoid instructions in .h file.