Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Akhil Goyal > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:44 PM > To: Coyle, David <david.co...@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan > <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; > Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com> > Cc: techbo...@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Ryan, Brendan > <brendan.r...@intel.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; > Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; Ruifeng Wang > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Liron Himi <lir...@marvell.com>; Nagadheeraj > Rottela <rnagadhee...@marvell.com>; Srikanth Jampala > <jsrika...@marvell.com>; Gagandeep Singh <g.si...@nxp.com>; Jay Zhou > <jianjay.z...@huawei.com>; Ravi Kumar <ravi1.ku...@amd.com>; > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; olivier.m...@6wind.com; > honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; al...@mellanox.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add AESNI-MB rawdev for multi- > function processing ... > Yes, it is preferred, but it should be a union to > rte_crypto_sym_op/rte_crypto_asym_op. > Crypto_op->type as RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SECURITY and sess_type as > RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SECURITY_SESSION > The size of rte_crypto_op will remain as is and there will be no ABI breakage > I > guess. > [Fan: with this way the PMD will have to do rte_crypto_op.type check, and then look into rte_security_op field, only when it find the security_op type is crypto_crc, it will process the security_op data. Would that being too many reads and checking for a single op? Can we create a new API for rte_security to process rte_security_ops for Crypto_CRC or future needs?] ... Regards, Fan
