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, 01 Oct 2018 12:05:00 +0200
Message-ID: <46633655.Q4LKdWAF6e@xps>
References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
 <21787cc6-1151-53e9-a86b-aa008b421fb1@caviumnetworks.com>
 <c6077921-c2ea-92ca-0cbe-a6c293703be9@caviumnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Fiona Trahe <fiona.trahe@intel.com>,
 Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, Anoob Joseph <ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Pablo de Lara <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: "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 C40D044BE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  1 Oct 2018 12:05:06 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <c6077921-c2ea-92ca-0cbe-a6c293703be9@caviumnetworks.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>

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.