|SUCCESS| [2/2] doc: update Arm IPsec-MB references for cryptodev PMDs

[dpdklab at iol.unh.edu]

Test-Label: ai-code-review
Test-Status: SUCCESS
https://dpdk.org/patch/164621

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-05-30

I'll review these two patches for correctness, coding style, and guideline compliance.

## Patch 1/2: crypto/ipsec_mb: allow aesni_mb and aesni_gcm vdevs on Arm

Author: Wathsala Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>
Commit: [PATCH 1/2] crypto/ipsec_mb: allow aesni_mb and aesni_gcm vdevs on Arm

This patch extends the Arm PMD gating logic to permit AESNI_MB and 
AESNI_GCM PMD types on Arm platforms.

> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/ipsec_mb_private.c b/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/ipsec_mb_private.c
> index b4c36e7f58..468d77fead 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/ipsec_mb_private.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/ipsec_mb_private.c
> @@ -72,7 +72,9 @@ ipsec_mb_create(struct rte_vdev_device *vdev,
>  
>  #if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM)
>  	if ((pmd_type != IPSEC_MB_PMD_TYPE_SNOW3G) &&
> -		(pmd_type != IPSEC_MB_PMD_TYPE_ZUC))
> +		(pmd_type != IPSEC_MB_PMD_TYPE_ZUC) &&
> +		(pmd_type != IPSEC_MB_PMD_TYPE_AESNI_MB) &&
> +		(pmd_type != IPSEC_MB_PMD_TYPE_AESNI_GCM))

Does this whitespace indentation follow the DPDK coding style? According to
the coding style guide, continuation lines should align with the opening
parenthesis or be indented by one additional tab. The current indentation
appears to use a single tab, which may not align properly with the opening
parenthesis on the previous line depending on tab width settings.

Looking at the logical structure, this if-statement chain has grown quite
long. Would it be clearer to restructure this as a switch statement or use
a helper function that checks if the pmd_type is supported on ARM? The
current pattern of multiple negated comparisons joined by AND operations
becomes harder to maintain as more types are added.

>  		return -ENOTSUP;
>  #endif

## Patch 2/2: doc: update Arm IPsec-MB references for cryptodev PMDs

Author: Wathsala Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>
Commit: [PATCH 2/2] doc: update Arm IPsec-MB references for cryptodev PMDs

This patch updates documentation to reflect Arm IPsec-MB library support
and version tags.

> diff --git a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_gcm.rst b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_gcm.rst
> index 0b1f2262fb..5b31ee19eb 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_gcm.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_gcm.rst
> @@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ and compile it on their user system before building DPDK.
>  The latest version of the library supported by this PMD is v1.5, which
>  can be downloaded in `<https://github.com/01org/intel-ipsec-mb/archive/v1.5.zip>`_.
>  
> +For Arm system, ARM64 port of the multi-buffer library can be downloaded from
> +https://gitlab.arm.com/arm-reference-solutions/ipsec-mb/-/tree/main/. The
> +latest version of the library supported by this PMD is tagged as SECLIB-IPSEC-2026.05.30.

Is the tag SECLIB-IPSEC-2026.05.30 correct? This patch is dated May 29,
2026, but the tag references May 30, 2026. Does this tag actually exist in
the upstream repository, or is this a future tag? If it's a future release,
should the documentation wait until that release is available?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_mb.rst b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_mb.rst
> index 7ce92305d1..8a7920ab46 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_mb.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/aesni_mb.rst

[ ... ]

> @@ -108,6 +108,10 @@ and compile it on their user system before building DPDK.
>  The latest version of the library supported by this PMD is v1.5, which
>  can be downloaded from `<https://github.com/01org/intel-ipsec-mb/archive/v1.5.zip>`_.
>  
> +For Arm system, ARM64 port of the multi-buffer library can be downloaded from
> +https://gitlab.arm.com/arm-reference-solutions/ipsec-mb/-/tree/main/. The
> +latest version of the library supported by this PMD is tagged as SECLIB-IPSEC-2026.05.30.

Same question about the tag date here - does SECLIB-IPSEC-2026.05.30 exist
at the time of this patch submission on May 29, 2026?