08/10/2018 17:59, Trahe, Fiona:

Hi Akhil, Joseph, Thomas,
Just spotted this now.
See below.

From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]

quoted

24/09/2018 13:36, Joseph, Anoob:

quoted

Hi Fiona,

Can you please comment on this?

We are adding all capabilities of octeontx-crypto PMD as a macro in
otx_cryptodev_capabilites.h file and then we are using it from
otx_cryptodev_ops.c. This is the approach followed by QAT crypto PMD. As
per my understanding, this is to ensure that cryptodev_ops file remains
simple. For other PMDs with fewer number of capabilities, the structure
can be populated in the .c file itself without the size of the file
coming into the picture.

But this would cause checkpatch to report error. Akhil's suggestion is
to move the entire definition to a header and include it from the .c
file. I believe, the QAT approach was to avoid variable definition in
the header. What do you think would be a better approach here?

I think we should avoid adding some code in a .h file.
And it is even worst when using macros.

I suggest defining the capabilities in a .c file.
If you don't want to bloat the main .c file, you can create a function
defined in another .c file.

I can't remember all the variations we tried, but there were a few.
I think the macro works well in this case. 
What is the issue we need to solve?

It is a discussion about best practice.
My answer is: avoid long macros and avoid instructions in .h file.