Hey guys,
IMO having:
typedef enum odp_ipsec_op_mode_t
ODP_IPSEC_OP_MODE_*
typedef enum odp_ipsec_dir_t
ODP_IPSEC_DIR_*
typedef enum odp_ipsec_mode_t
ODP_IPSEC_MODE_*
typedef enum odp_ipsec_tunnel_type_t
ODP_IPSEC_TUNNEL_*
and then:
typedef enum odp_ipsec_protocol_t
ODP_IPSEC_*
looks like a minor inconsistency to me. I am not sure I will be able to
join the call since we have the OFP call about the same time...
Regards,
Andriy
On 28.02.2017 13:43, Bill Fischofer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<petri.savolai...@nokia-bell-labs.com
<mailto:petri.savolai...@nokia-bell-labs.com>> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org
<mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org>] On Behalf Of Bill
> Fischofer
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:17 PM
> To: Andriy Berestovskyy <andriy.berestovs...@cavium.com
<mailto:andriy.berestovs...@cavium.com>>
> Cc: lng-odp-forward <lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
<mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org>>
> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] api: ipsec: make IPSEC protocol consistent
> with other types
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Andriy Berestovskyy <
> andriy.berestovs...@cavium.com
<mailto:andriy.berestovs...@cavium.com>> wrote:
>
> > Oops, sorry.
> > Shall I resend the patch then?
> >
>
> Probably not necessary right now. Let's get some feedback on this. If a v2
> is needed, then yes, please post it as an API-NEXT patch. Thanks.
+/**
+ * IPSEC protocol
+ */
+typedef enum odp_ipsec_proto_t {
+ /** ESP protocol */
+ ODP_IPSEC_ESP = 0,
+
+ /** AH protocol */
+ ODP_IPSEC_AH
+
+} odp_ipsec_proto_t;
" "proto" is not an obvious abbreviation. It might stand for
"prototype". I'd prefer to see this as odp_ipsec_protocol_t "
Bill, you didn't like "proto" the last time. Is it now OK?
I prefer these things to be unambiguous to trying to save a couple of
characters, but there are a number of proposed changes in this patch, so
worth discussing them.
-Petri
