From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E2CCA9EB6 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC342173B for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="s7vy4qMp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6CC342173B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CBE1BFA0; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:12:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f196.google.com (mail-il1-f196.google.com [209.85.166.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAD71BF91 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:12:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z10so18059909ilo.8 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:12:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FsyFG6HwyZ2sWjkE7J+yh3dX8pc+GJZ2yvv135Cg434=; b=s7vy4qMpYU5Gxq+vRkzrHsWiaF+KpbVM+Tg5vS8paTjYnb9HK6Kwl9kdmZ/ehjfTTN NuYG4SRBJFaOghSTHRL85h0jH1RhKUXEfApW0THU10K6HytzcvI9XTUlqXvyMuVINO4w spq/qsXqkuYklSAsACqfjUD0WjBoCCO3nnuJrBYdpSlwpqZyfQdzVKjRgqeqMKAbo2L2 mFSzKDk3AqynlgSTUYxeTP5ThZzZw5VITNcH1syd00qTbSUOpBVEtMmlfOdWmI+CkgAb 0W0DF5owON0t8FOR2EB6kcPw5aBuzTYoDrblghawCfGls1dt7zFPPoSwpRifVW9lnNgp /NjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FsyFG6HwyZ2sWjkE7J+yh3dX8pc+GJZ2yvv135Cg434=; b=k6PdofnfPfUpRIQ7HOo+54wrJHueWXc/xwPFcJKkSIDebfCgebPZBH7ijTToBHFJ8o n5T52khHYJVULmNi2us17+9v3T9s1v7eri/trl/gwM/R+Y1V8VmPoDsqN5V2OsgzaenF Scl6XqXFidwmM01j3dAiy5fo2T7Gr6qOn44L6U1V6/x3Qm88b2N2XjquSX7vbxQppnRU P39oboyppEFnbzgCWXECLYaQrw/lPkHIwBbp5aGwx65PyZjDUbqVk42VuHAVPuNHesSw i6cQP44v171hcT2+lp9zhgNIznSWvInh4f2Shzem0AoD2HzQ6WDB4HefeoLxBldX1dzM XEGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWDNmK6rVGgY8/OCad3urtiULzCz5593rwpfiWONkd0O/MQSKUY a6peThiLcn+hKUgaIXD3qOgMpyQJ6ssBYxuW3xU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNU1xV9kJGhA19jkaHtMItYBZd40dHq+9nWW+ZDUfbLNvEz7Up0Ivf10BVd2etq291Nmilt9HLDaZt4UA5V2c= X-Received: by 2002:a92:1612:: with SMTP id r18mr13325179ill.60.1571818352150; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:12:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191012073421.44748-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <3373803.DCgnikpo0B@xps> In-Reply-To: <3373803.DCgnikpo0B@xps> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:42:16 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , dpdk-dev , "Akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "anoobj@marvell.com" , "pathreya@marvell.com" , "pkapoor@marvell.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , nd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] maintainers: update for armv8 crypto library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list 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 Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:53 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 23/10/2019 04:50, Jerin Jacob: > > In past, there was a concern with this approach about maintaining the > > assembly code in dpdk.org. Is this concern still valid? > [...] > > DPDK does not define any such interface. It was pushed to external library > > for the reason mentioned above. > > Yes it is questionable to host some asm code which is doing a processing > not really specific to DPDK. Currently, it is doing the DPDK specific processing like kernel code as asm code. > Also, my first thought was that this library could be used by other projects. OK. > Another concern about integrating this crypto lib in DPDK is to know > whether it would have an impact on DPDK packaging and delivering? See below. > I don't remember any answer about legal export of this crypto processing. I don't think, we ran through the legal check on this. But this can be a genuine issue from the above list. Not sure how Linux kernel handles this case. > >