Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:24 PM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona > <[email protected]> > Cc: Coyle, David <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Doherty, Declan > <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <[email protected]>; Ryan, > Brendan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected]; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang > <[email protected]>; Liron Himi <[email protected]>; Nagadheeraj Rottela > <[email protected]>; Srikanth Jampala <[email protected]>; > Gagandeep Singh > <[email protected]>; Jay Zhou <[email protected]>; Ravi Kumar > <[email protected]>; > Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add AESNI-MB rawdev for multi-function > processing > > 14/04/2020 15:04, Trahe, Fiona: > > > 14/04/2020 12:21, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/[email protected] > > > mprd11.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > > > I am not convinced. > > > I don't like rawdev in general. > > > Rawdev is good only for hardware support which cannot be generic > > > like SoC, FPGA management or DMA engine. > > > > [Fiona] CRC and BIP are not crypto algorithms, they are error detection > > processes. > > So there is no class in DPDK that these readily fit into. > > There was resistance to adding another xxxddev, and even if one had been > > added > > for error_detection_dev, there would still have been another layer needed > > to couple this with cryptodev. Various proposals for this have been > > discussed on the ML > > in RFC and recent patches, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for this as > > a generic API. > > So it seems that only Intel has software and hardware engines that provide > > this > > specialised feature coupling. In that case rawdev seems like the most > > appropriate vehicle to expose this. > > Adding some vendor-specific API is not a good answer. > It will work in some cases, but it won't make DPDK better. > What's the purpose of DPDK if it's not solving a common problem > for different hardware? [Fiona] Based on that logic rawdev should be deprecated. But the community has agreed that it has a place. And the common problem here is device exposure. With a specialised service on top.
> > > Here the intent is to use rawdev because we don't find a good API. > > > API defeat is a no-go. > > > > [Fiona] It's not that we haven't found a good API, but that there doesn't > > seem > > to be a general requirement for such a specialised API > > There is a requirement to combine features of different classes. [Fiona] Can you point me to that requirement please? We suggested it, but did not get community engagement and have dropped our generic API requirement, instead focussing on this specialised case. > In the past, rte_security was an "answer" to this issue with crypto and > ethdev. > This is a real topic, please let's find a generic elegant solution.
