> > > /**
> > > diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h index 2c2c2edeb7..7d683fd728 100644
> > > --- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > +++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > @@ -168,7 +168,9 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_asymmetric_xform_capability {
> > > /**< Transform type: RSA/MODEXP/DH/DSA/MODINV */
> > >
> > > uint32_t op_types;
> > > - /**< bitmask for supported rte_crypto_asym_op_type */
> > > + /**< bitmask for supported rte_crypto_asym_op_type or
> > > + * rte_crypto_asym_ke_type
> > > + */
> >
> > How is this supposed to work?
> > Ke_type and op_type are 2 separate enums which can have same value.
> > How will the user identify which one to use?
> [Arek] - by algorithm - xform_type.
Ok got it. But please update the comments to clarify this confusion that this
Based on xform type
> > Shouldn't we split this too?
> [Arek] - for me both options are ok. For some SM2 may be bit challenging here,
> but in such situations we should have different op types for KE and OP. This
> would spare this API from having one op with majority of fields unused.
> Though it may be split too, not big problem.
