Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:20:49 -0700
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/5] net/mlx5: Remove tls vs. ktls separation
 as it is the same
Message-ID: <20220405172049.slomqla4pmnyczbj@sx1>
References: <cover.1649073691.git.leonro@nvidia.com>
 <67e596599edcffb0de43f26551208dfd34ac777e.1649073691.git.leonro@nvidia.com>
 <20220405003322.afko7uo527w5j3zu@sx1>
 <YkvW9SNJeb5VPmeg@unreal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YkvW9SNJeb5VPmeg@unreal>
Precedence: bulk

On 05 Apr 08:43, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:33:22PM -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> On 04 Apr 15:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>> >
>> > After removal FPGA TLS, we can remove tls->ktls indirection too,
>> > as it is the same thing.

[...]

> > rename drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/{tls_stats.c => ktls_stats.c} (76%)
>>
>> Why not ktls_*.c => tls_*.c ?
>
>Mostly because other drivers use _ktls_ name for this type of functionality.
>Plus internally, Tariq suggested to squash everything into ktls.
>
>>
>> Since we now have one TLS implementation, it would've been easier to maybe
>> repurpose TLS to be KTLS only and avoid renaming every TLS to KTLS in all
>> functions and files.
>>
>> So just keep tls.c and all mlx5_tls_xyz functions and implement ktls
>> directly in them, the renaming will be done only on the ktls implementation
>> part of the code rather than in every caller.
>
>Should I do it or keep this patch as is?
>

Keep it, i don't have any strong feeling about this,
I just wanted to reduce the patch size.