From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kumar, Ravi1" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 17/19] crypto/ccp: support cpu based md5 and sha2 family authentication algo Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 06:01:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1520584520-130522-1-git-send-email-Ravi1.kumar@amd.com> <14946114.ASIPbkMQcp@xps> <1698373.c9XDPgIzTm@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0045.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26AD3230 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 08:02:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" >Hi Ravi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] >> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:06 AM >> To: Kumar, Ravi1 >> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo ;=20 >> dev@dpdk.org; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 17/19] crypto/ccp: support cpu based=20 >> md5 and sha2 family authentication algo >>=20 >> 23/04/2018 08:41, Kumar, Ravi1: >> > >> +CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_CCP_CPU_AUTH=3Dn >> > > >> > >Why introducing a compile-time option? >> > >Can it be a run-time option of the device? >> > >We must not add compile-time device option if not well justified. >> [...] >> > By default, all the crypto operations (cipher + auth) are offloaded=20 >> > to CCP >> engines. When user enables CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_CCP_CPU_AUTH=3Dy, the=20 >> auth operations are not offloaded to CCP and rather performed over=20 >> CPU. We kept this feature as a compile time option in order to let=20 >> user decide whether to run auth operations on CCP or CPU as some of=20 >> the auth operations performs faster on CPU as compared to their performa= nce on CCP. >>=20 >> No, you do not let the user decide. >> The compilation options are for the packager to decide. >> The user can rely on pre-compiled packages and use only runtime options. >> That's why we forbid compile-time options for such features. >>=20 > >Could you send a patch to remove this compile-time option and pass it as a= n option for the vdev? >Look at how the crypto scheduler accepts parameters from "rte_vdev_init" o= r --vdev, in scheduler_pmd.c. > >Thanks! >Pablo > Hi Pablo, I have uploaded 2 patches for this issue.=20 If needed, you could squash the patch-1 to our very initial patch (commit 0= 054d84f6ec8: crypto/ccp: add AMD ccp skeleton PMD). Please let me know if you need any other information from our side.=20 Regards, Ravi