Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Akhil Goyal > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:44 PM > To: Coyle, David <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan > <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; > Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <[email protected]>; Ryan, Brendan > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; > Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang > <[email protected]>; Liron Himi <[email protected]>; Nagadheeraj > Rottela <[email protected]>; Srikanth Jampala > <[email protected]>; Gagandeep Singh <[email protected]>; Jay Zhou > <[email protected]>; Ravi Kumar <[email protected]>; > Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Stephen Hemminger > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > 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
