[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field

[Wang, Haiyue]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 16:52
> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; david.marchand at redhat.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru;
> akhil.goyal at nxp.com; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>;
> Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; Guo, Jia <jia.guo at intel.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerinj at marvell.com>;
> Nithin Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram at marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar K <kirankumark at marvell.com>; Nicolau, Radu
> <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>; Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field
> 
> 27/10/2020 03:01, Wang, Haiyue:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > For ixgbe PMD,
> >
> > Acked-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
> >
> > But I feel that 'rte_security_dynfield' name is too generic, can it be
> > more specific about what the field is used for ?
> >
> > Like below ;-)
> >
> > #define RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA(m) \
> > 	RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD((m), \
> > 			  rte_security_dev_metadata_offset, \
> > 			  RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA_TYPE *)
> 
> Yes rte_security_dynfield is too much generic,
> as well as RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA.
> It seems there are different data stored in this field.
> We should have different fields for different data.
> But such cleanup is another step for someone else.

Understood, thanks, then 'DEV_METADATA' is also generic.

> 
>