>-----Original Message-----
>From: Trahe, Fiona [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: 08 May 2018 20:30
>To: Verma, Shally <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
><[email protected]>
>Cc: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad
><[email protected]>; Sahu, Sunila
><[email protected]>; Gupta, Ashish <[email protected]>;
>[email protected]; Sahu, Sunila <[email protected]>;
>Gupta, Ashish <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/6] lib/cryptodev: add asymmetric crypto capability in
>cryptodev
>
>Hi Shally,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shally Verma [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 12:25 PM
>> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona
>> <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected];
>> [email protected]; Sunila Sahu <[email protected]>; Ashish Gupta
>> <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [PATCH v2 3/6] lib/cryptodev: add asymmetric crypto capability in
>> cryptodev
>>
>> Extend cryptodev with asymmetric capability APIs and
>> definitions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shally Verma <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Sunila Sahu <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Gupta <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>/// snip ///
>> +int __rte_experimental
>> +rte_cryptodev_asym_xfrm_capability_check_modlen(
>> + const struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_xfrm_capability *capability,
>> + uint16_t modlen)
>> +{
>> + /* handle special case of 0 which mean PMD define no limit defined */
>[Fiona] grammar. Maybe "which means PMD doesn't define any limit"
>
>> + if ((capability->modlen.min != 0) &&
>> + ((modlen < capability->modlen.min) ||
>> + (capability->modlen.increment != 0 &&
>> + (modlen % (capability->modlen.increment)))))
>> + return -1;
>> + if ((capability->modlen.max != 0) &&
>> + ((modlen > capability->modlen.max) ||
>> + (capability->modlen.increment != 0 &&
>> + (modlen % (capability->modlen.increment)))))
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>
>> const char *
>> rte_cryptodev_get_feature_name(uint64_t flag)
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> index 68d1ae1..deae3d6 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> @@ -178,6 +178,37 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability {
>> };
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * Asymmetric Xform Crypto Capability
>> + *
>> + */
>> +struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_xfrm_capability {
>> + enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_type xform_type;
>> + /**< Transform type: RSA/MODEXP/DH/DSA/MODINV */
>> +
>> + uint32_t op_types;
>> + /**< bitmask for supported rte_crypto_asym_op_type */
>> +
>> + __extension__
>> + union {
>> + struct rte_crypto_param_range modlen;
>> + /**< Range of modulus length supported by modulus based xform.
>> + * Value 0 mean implementation default
>> + */
>> + };
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Asymmetric Crypto Capability
>> + *
>> + */
>> +struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_capability {
>> + enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_type xform_type;
>> + /**< Transform type: RSA/MODEXP/DH/DSA/MODINV */
>> + struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_xfrm_capability xfrm_capa;
>> +};
>[Fiona] Is it necessary to have xform_type in both above structures?
>Seems like duplication. Or would it be better if both are combined into 1
>struct?
>
[Shally] Ok.
>> +
>> +
>> /** Structure used to capture a capability of a crypto device */
>> struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities {
>> enum rte_crypto_op_type op;
>> @@ -187,6 +218,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities {
>> union {
>> struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability sym;
>> /**< Symmetric operation capability parameters */
>> + struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_capability asym;
>> + /**< Asymmetric operation capability parameters */
>> };
>> };
>/// snip ///
