[dpdk-dev] [v4 1/3] cryptodev: support enqueue callback functions

[Gujjar, Abhinandan S]

Hi Tech board members,

Could you please clarify the concern?
The latest patch (https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/82536/) supports both enqueue and dequeue callback functionality.

Thanks
Abhinandan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:59 PM
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>;
> Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; techboard at dpdk.org
> Cc: Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati at intel.com>; jerinj at marvell.com
> Subject: RE: [v4 1/3] cryptodev: support enqueue callback functions
> 
> Hi Tech board members,
> 
> I have a doubt about the ABI breakage in below addition of field.
> Could you please comment.
> 
> >  /** The data structure associated with each crypto device. */  struct
> > rte_cryptodev {
> >  	dequeue_pkt_burst_t dequeue_burst;
> > @@ -867,6 +922,10 @@ struct rte_cryptodev {
> >  	__extension__
> >  	uint8_t attached : 1;
> >  	/**< Flag indicating the device is attached */
> > +
> > +	struct rte_cryptodev_enq_cb_rcu *enq_cbs;
> > +	/**< User application callback for pre enqueue processing */
> > +
> >  } __rte_cache_aligned;
> 
> Here rte_cryptodevs is defined in stable API list in map file which is a pointer
> To all rte_cryptodev and the above change is changing the size of the structure.
> IMO, it seems an ABI breakage, but not sure. So wanted to double check.
> Now if it is an ABI breakage, then can we allow it? There was no deprecation
> notice Prior to this release.
> 
> Also I think if we are allowing the above change, then we should also add
> another Field for deq_cbs also for post crypto processing in this patch only.
> 
> Regards,
> Akhil