> >> diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c index 0d816ed4a9..005f0e7952 100644
> >> --- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> @@ -1912,9 +1912,9 @@ rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(struct
> >> rte_mempool *mp)
> >> return sess;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -void *
> >> -rte_cryptodev_asym_session_create(struct rte_mempool *mp, uint8_t
> >> dev_id,
> >> - struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xforms)
> >> +int
> >> +rte_cryptodev_asym_session_create(void **session, struct rte_mempool
> >> *mp,
> >> + uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xforms)
> >
> >Do you really need a double pointer for the session handle?
> >
>
> [CP] Yes I believe so, the return value used to be session, but now that we
> have
> an int return value, the session needs to be passed in as a parameter somehow.
> We need the double pointer because we need the call to rte_mempool_get() to
> set the original session pointer that can be accessed outside of this
> function,
> rather than just the local copy if it were a singular session pointer passed
> in as a
> parameter.
>
Ok
