14/04/2021 21:43, Akhil Goyal:
> > 14/04/2021 20:37, Akhil Goyal:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > > +       RTE_STD_C11
> > > > +       union { /* temporary anonymous union for ABI compatibility */
> > > > +
> > > >         struct {
> > > >                 const uint8_t *data;    /**< pointer to key data */
> > > >                 uint16_t length;        /**< key length in bytes */
> > > > @@ -222,6 +225,27 @@ struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform {
> > > >          *  - Each key can be either 128 bits (16 bytes) or 256 bits 
> > > > (32 bytes).
> > > >          *  - Both keys must have the same size.
> > > >          **/
> > > > +
> > > > +       RTE_STD_C11
> > > > +       struct { /* temporary anonymous struct for ABI compatibility */
> > > > +               const uint8_t *_key_data; /* reserved for key.data 
> > > > union */
> > > > +               uint16_t _key_length;     /* reserved for key.length 
> > > > union */
> > > > +               /* next field can fill the padding hole */
> > > > +
> > > > +       uint16_t dataunit_len;
> > > > +       /**< When RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_CIPHER_MULTIPLE_DATA_UNITS is
> > > > enabled,
> > > > +        * this is the data-unit length of the algorithm,
> > > > +        * otherwise or when the value is 0, use the operation length.
> > > > +        * The value should be in the range defined by the dataunit_set 
> > > > field
> > > > +        * in the cipher capability.
> > > > +        *
> > > > +        * - For AES-XTS it is the size of data-unit, from IEEE Std 
> > > > 1619-2007.
> > > > +        * For-each data-unit in the operation, the tweak (IV) value is
> > > > +        * assigned consecutively starting from the operation assigned 
> > > > IV.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +
> > > > +       }; }; /* temporary struct nested in union for ABI compatibility 
> > > > */
> > > > +
> > > Can we add a deprecation notice also in this patch to remove these
> > temporary
> > > Struct and union, so that we remember to remove them in 21.11
> > 
> > I thought about it, but a deprecation notice may involve
> > new design considerations and requires 3 approvals.
> > I think it is better to send it separately.
> 
> In that case you can send it as a separate patch now only.
> Just wanted to make sure that it is not forgotten.

Yes, sent:
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210414201544.1063413-1-tho...@monjalon.net/



Reply via email to