Hi Fan,
> Hi AKhil
>
> ...
> > IMO, the following union can clarify all doubts.
> > @Ananyev, Konstantin: Any suggestions from your side?
> >
> > /** IV and aad information for various use cases. */
> > union {
> > /** Supposed to be used with CPU crypto API call. */
> > struct {
> > /** array of pointers to IV */
> > void **iv;
> > /** array of pointers to AAD */
> > void **aad;
> > /** array of pointers to digest */
> > void **digest;
> > } cpu_crypto; < or any other useful name>
> > /* Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> > struct {
> > void *cipher_iv_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t cipher_iv_iova;
> > void *auth_iv_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t auth_iv_iova;
> > void *digest_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t digest_iova;
> > } hw_chain;
> > /* Supposed to be used with HW raw crypto API call. */
> > struct {
> > void *iv_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t iv_iova;
> > void *digest_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t digest_iova;
> > void *aad_ptr;
> > rte_iova_t aad_iova;
> > } hw_aead;
> > };
> >
> >
>
> The above structure cannot support the array of multiple jobs but a single
> job.
So was your previous structure. Was it not tested before?
> So we have to use something like
>
> struct {
> void **cipher_iv_ptr;
You can even drop _ptr from the name of each of them.
> rtei_iova_t *cipher_iv_iova;
> ...
> } hw_chain;
> struct {
> void **iv_ptr;
> rte_iova_t *iv_iova;
> ...
> } hw_aead;
>
> Is it ok?
>
> Regards,
> Fan
