[PATCH] crypto/qat: fix build

[Tyler Retzlaff]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 01:22:09PM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:41 AM
> > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
> > <gakhil at marvell.com>; Ji, Kai <kai.ji at intel.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>;
> > dev at dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>; Dooley,
> > Brian <brian.dooley at intel.com>; Power, Ciara <ciara.power at intel.com>;
> > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/qat: fix build
> > 
> > 12/01/2023 11:32, Ji, Kai:
> > > Ok, a long story short, this issue should only occurred when
> > RTE_QAT_LIBIPSECMB is enabled.
> > > It was intend to remove Openssl lib dependency in QAT replaced with
> > > ipsec_mb lib, but the work was partially done due to limitation of
> > > ipsec_mb by the time (FIPS certification)
> > >
> > > I'm happy with current fix and please cc: stable at dpdk.org
> > 
> > I'm not happy with this fix. It is a dirty workaround.
> > It would be better to have an #ifdef in ipsec_mb.
> > 
> > Also I would like an answer to the question below. What triggered this error?
> > Is it a new thing in the lib ipsec_mb?
> > Why defining AES_BLOCK_SIZE while IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE can be used and
> > have a proper prefix?
> 
> Apologies for the late response.
> 
> This macro was renamed to IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE, as you already know.
> The problem is that, for compatibility reasons, we had to keep the old macro as well.

doesn't this mean the compat could have been retained with a simple
check?

#ifndef AES_BLOCK_SIZE
#define AES_BLOCK_SIZE IMB_AES_BLOCK_SIZE
#endif

anyway, you can ignore this comment if you already worked out a solution
on the mail thread.