> > > - removed asymnetric crypto xform next field.
> > > Rationale behind having chaining in symmetric crypto was a fact that
> > > encryption and authentication are usually done on the same set of data
> > > independent of algorithm.
> > > HW usually will be able to handle it in one PCI call.
> > > In asymmetric there is no such relation between algorithms, therefore
> > > next field would be useless.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Arek Kusztal <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>
> >
> > Please check documentation "doc/guides/prog_guide/cryptodev_lib.rst"
> > Not all asymmetric crypto xforms are supported for chaining. Currently
> > supported asymmetric crypto chaining is Diffie-Hellman private key
> > generation
> > followed by public generation.
> [Arek] And why do chaining when this can be done even with one bit flag.
>
I believe it is OK to remove next. @Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda/Anoob please
confirm.
If we are removing it, then documentation should be in sync.
> Also, currently API does not support chaining of
> > symmetric and asymmetric crypto xforms.
> [Arek] - This is one unlikely scenario to combine symmetric and asymmetric.
> One
> I can think of was once proposed DH + DSA integration for random number. But
> not much else, although we can keep it around for a while.
Yes it is highly unlikely to use this combination.
> >
> > > ---
> > > lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> > > b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h index 1652a434a5..b355cbe5fa 100644
> > > --- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> > > +++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> > > @@ -492,8 +492,6 @@ struct rte_crypto_ecpm_op_param {
> > > * Structure describing asym xforms.
> > > */
> > > struct rte_crypto_asym_xform {
> > > - struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *next;
> > > - /**< Pointer to next xform to set up xform chain.*/
> > > enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_type xform_type;
> > > /**< Asymmetric crypto transform */
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.13.6
