> -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 2:49 PM > To: Petri Savolainen <[email protected]>; lng- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/2] IPSEC packet event > > Petri, > > On 09.06.2017 13:51, Petri Savolainen wrote: > > Requires "[API-NEXT PATCH v2 0/2] IPsec API update". > > > > Input and output of IPSEC operations are packets. Parameter and > > result structures are cleaner when packet arrays are direct > > parameters to functions. Also API is more flexible for > > application or API pipelining when output is packets with > > additional metadata. Application or API pipeline stages which > > do not care about IPSEC results may work on basic packet metadata. > > Two generic issues: > > - I thought that basic idea was to generate ODP_EVENT_PACKET and then > use API call to check if there is IPsec metadata associated with it? >
We ended up with defining odp_event_type() to be the call to check if there's extra metadata. The reason is that when ipsec decrypt fails, data is garbage, so application needs to check ipsec status always for those packets. With single event type, application would need to do the ipsec check also for non-ipsec packets. This API keeps normal packets as is. > - First patch contains several 'extra' changes. Can we work towards > splitting it into more manageable pieces? Which ones you feel disturbing? Some of those are consequence of editing the corresponding comment block anyway (e.g. for the event change). I would not want to edit the same comment block two times: first in the minimal way possible, and then rewrite it for better quality in a next patch. Just comment on those places you disagree with the new text. -Petri
