On Monday 22 January 2018 03:46 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2017-12-20, 17:03:02 +0530, Atul Gupta wrote:
RFC series for Chelsio Inline TLS driver (chtls.ko)
Driver use the ULP infrastructure to register chtls as Inline TLS ULP.
I don't think drivers should be registering their own ULP. TLS
offloading should be transparent to userspace, whatever HW ends up
being used. If each driver implements its own ULP, the application has
to be aware of what HW and what driver it's running on.
using different ULP is derived from
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9746381/
I think this offload should rely on a generic infrastructure, not
build its own private interface. Look at the current kTLS code, the
proposal for an offload infrastructure [0] from Mellanox, and see how
you can fit your driver into that, and extend what's missing.
[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/849984/
The driver indeed used the proposed offload infrastructure and extended
for Inline Rx/Tx
[...]
Atul Gupta (9):
chtls: structure and macro definiton
cxgb4: Inline TLS FW Interface
cxgb4: LLD driver changes to enable TLS
chcr: Key Macro
chtls: Key program
chtls: CPL handler definition
chtls: Inline crypto request Tx/Rx
chtls: Register the ULP
Makefile Kconfig
That patchset is split so that each patch touches a separate set of
files, and the description of the contents of each patch is very
limited. Can you try to group your changes by feature instead? That
should help you come up with descriptive commit messages as well.
Made all attempts to group the contents based on functionality, the set
is broken into
driver registration, I/O with crypto Inline request, key handling and
messages exchanged with
hardware.
Thanks,
