> > On 9/23/2021 1:46 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >> Update ipsec_xform definition to include ESN field. > >> This allows the application to control the ESN starting value. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Sinha <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Martin Buckley <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> lib/security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h > >> index 84ba1b08f8..1bd09e3cc2 100644 > >> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h > >> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h > >> @@ -240,6 +240,14 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_xform { > >> */ > >> uint32_t mss; > >> /**< IPsec payload Maximum Segment Size */ > >> + union { > >> + uint64_t value; > >> + struct { > >> + uint32_t low; > >> + uint32_t hi; > > Do we really need low/hi here? > > As I remember ESN is 64bit value, no? > The low and high halves are managed differently so I think for better > consistency it's easier to have them as such.
Ok, if you believe it would help somehow, I am fine.
