>
> On 9/23/2021 1:46 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> Update ipsec_xform definition to include ESN field.
> >> This allows the application to control the ESN starting value.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.dohe...@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Sinha <abhijit.si...@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Martin Buckley <daniel.m.buck...@intel.com>
> >> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
> >> Acked-by: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> >> ---
> >> lib/security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> >> index 84ba1b08f8..1bd09e3cc2 100644
> >> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
> >> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> >> @@ -240,6 +240,14 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_xform {
> >> */
> >> uint32_t mss;
> >> /**< IPsec payload Maximum Segment Size */
> >> + union {
> >> + uint64_t value;
> >> + struct {
> >> + uint32_t low;
> >> + uint32_t hi;
> > Do we really need low/hi here?
> > As I remember ESN is 64bit value, no?
> The low and high halves are managed differently so I think for better
> consistency it's easier to have them as such.
Ok, if you believe it would help somehow, I am fine.
