Hi Jerin,
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * Checks that inside given rte_ipsec_session crypto/security fields
> > > > + * are filled correctly and setups function pointers based on these
> > > > values.
> > > > + * @param ss
> > > > + * Pointer to the *rte_ipsec_session* object
> > > > + * @return
> > > > + * - Zero if operation completed successfully.
> > > > + * - -EINVAL if the parameters are invalid.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int __rte_experimental
> > > > +rte_ipsec_session_prepare(struct rte_ipsec_session *ss);
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * For input mbufs and given IPsec session prepare crypto ops that can
> > > > be
> > > > + * enqueued into the cryptodev associated with given session.
> > > > + * expects that for each input packet:
> > > > + * - l2_len, l3_len are setup correctly
> > > > + * Note that erroneous mbufs are not freed by the function,
> > > > + * but are placed beyond last valid mbuf in the *mb* array.
> > > > + * It is a user responsibility to handle them further.
> > > > + * @param ss
> > > > + * Pointer to the *rte_ipsec_session* object the packets belong to.
> > > > + * @param mb
> > > > + * The address of an array of *num* pointers to *rte_mbuf* structures
> > > > + * which contain the input packets.
> > > > + * @param cop
> > > > + * The address of an array of *num* pointers to the output
> > > > *rte_crypto_op*
> > > > + * structures.
> > > > + * @param num
> > > > + * The maximum number of packets to process.
> > > > + * @return
> > > > + * Number of successfully processed packets, with error code set in
> > > > rte_errno.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline uint16_t __rte_experimental
> > > > +rte_ipsec_crypto_prepare(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> > > > + struct rte_mbuf *mb[], struct rte_crypto_op *cop[], uint16_t
> > > > num)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return ss->func.prepare(ss, mb, cop, num);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > static inline uint16_t __rte_experimental
> > > rte_ipsec_event_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct
> > > rte_event *ev[], uint16_t num)
> > > {
> > > return ss->func.event_process(ss, ev, num);
> > > }
> >
> > To fulfill that, we can either have 2 separate function pointers:
> > uint16_t (*pkt_process)( const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct
> > rte_mbuf *mb[],uint16_t num);
> > uint16_t (*event_process)( const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct
> > rte_event *ev[],uint16_t num);
> >
> > Or we can keep one function pointer, but change it to accept just array of
> > pointers:
> > uint16_t (*process)( const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, void
> > *in[],uint16_t num);
> > and then make session_prepare() to choose a proper function based on input.
> >
> > I am ok with both schemes, but second one seems a bit nicer to me.
>
> How about best of both worlds, i.e save space and enable compile check
> by anonymous union of both functions
>
> RTE_STD_C11
> union {
> uint16_t (*pkt_process)( const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,struct
> rte_mbuf *mb[],uint16_t num);
> uint16_t (*event_process)( const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct
> rte_event *ev[],uint16_t num);
> };
>
Yes, it is definitely possible, but then we still need 2 API functions,
Depending on input type, i.e:
static inline uint16_t __rte_experimental
rte_ipsec_event_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct rte_event
*ev[], uint16_t num)
{
return ss->func.event_process(ss, ev, num);
}
static inline uint16_t __rte_experimental
rte_ipsec_pkt_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, struct rte_mbuf
*mb[], uint16_t num)
{
return ss->func.pkt_process(ss, mb, num);
}
While if we'll have void *[], we can have just one function for both cases:
static inline uint16_t __rte_experimental
rte_ipsec_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss, void *in[], uint16_t num)
{
return ss->func.process(ss, in, num);
}
Konstantin
