[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data

[Gujjar, Abhinandan S]

Hi Akhil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar at intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
> <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Jacob,
> Jerin <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran at cavium.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati at intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
> 
> Hi Abhinandan,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
> > To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
> > <declan.doherty at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> > <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran at cavium.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati at intel.com>; Rao,
> > Nikhil <nikhil.rao at intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> > private data
> >
> > Hi Akhil,
> >
> 
> ...
> 
> > I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
> >
> >  /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */  struct
> > rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> > +       uint16_t private_data_offset;
> > +       /**< Private data offset */
> >         __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
> >         /**< Private session material */  }; I am ok with this.
> >
> > Declan/Pablo,
> > Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else has
> > to be considered?
> 
> This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this latter has to be at
> the end of the structure.
> Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is announced and
> then it could be merged in the next release.
What is your opinion on this?
Should we consider retaining the enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type?
> 
> Pablo
Abhinandan