Hi Arek, Please see inline.
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Arek Kusztal > Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1:14 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: akhil.go...@nxp.com; fiona.tr...@intel.com; > shally.ve...@caviumnetworks.com; Arek Kusztal > <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com> > Subject: [EXT] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: extend api of asymmetric > crypto by sessionless > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Asymmetric cryptography algorithms may more likely use sessionless API so > there is need to extend API. > > Signed-off-by: Arek Kusztal <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > index 8672f21..5d69692 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > @@ -503,6 +503,8 @@ struct rte_crypto_dsa_op_param { struct > rte_crypto_asym_op { > struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session; > /**< Handle for the initialised session context */ > + struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xform; > + /**< Session-less API crypto operation parameters */ [Anoob] Shouldn't we make this a union? In symmetric mode, it is done that way and it makes sense also. Something like, RTE_STD_C11 union { struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session; /**< Handle for the initialised session context */ struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xform; /**< Session-less API crypto operation parameters */ }; > > __extension__ > union { > -- > 2.7.4