[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 09/33] crypto/octeontx: adds symmetric capabilities

Thomas Monjalon thomas at monjalon.net
Mon Oct 1 12:05:00 CEST 2018

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.

More information about the dev mailing list