[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 09/33] crypto/octeontx: adds symmetric capabilities
thomas at monjalon.net
Mon Oct 8 22:27:55 CEST 2018
08/10/2018 17:59, Trahe, Fiona:
> Hi Akhil, Joseph, Thomas,
> Just spotted this now.
> See below.
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > 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.
> I can't remember all the variations we tried, but there were a few.
> I think the macro works well in this case.
> What is the issue we need to solve?
It is a discussion about best practice.
My answer is: avoid long macros and avoid instructions in .h file.
More information about the dev