RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] [RFC] cryptodev: replace LIST_END enumerators with APIs

[Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>]

> >
> > Here's an idea...
> >
> > We can introduce a generic design pattern where we keep the _LIST_END enum
> value at the end, somehow marking it private (and not part of the API/ABI), and
> move the _list_end() function inside the C file, so it uses the _LIST_END enum
> value that the library was built with. E.g. like this:
> >
> >
> > In the header file:
> >
> > enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type {
> > 	RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY,
> > 	/**< Signature Verification operation */
> > #if RTE_BUILDING_INTERNAL
> > 	__RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END /* internal */
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > int rte_crypto_asym_op_list_end(void);
> >
> >
> > And in the associated library code file, when including rte_crypto_asym.h:
> >
> > #define RTE_BUILDING_INTERNAL
> > #include <cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h>
> >
> > int
> > rte_crypto_asym_op_list_end(void)
> > {
> > 	return __RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END;
> > }
> 
> It's more generic, and also keep LIST_END in the define, we just add new enum
> before it.
> But based on my understanding of ABI compatibility, from the point view of
> application,
> this API should return old-value even with the new library, but it will return new-
> value
> with new library. It could also break ABI.
> 
> So this API should force inline, just as this patch did. But it seem can't work if
> move
> this API to header file and add static inline.
> 
Yes, moving to c file does not seem to solve the purpose.
So should we move with the way the patch is submitted or we have some other suggestion?

Regards,
Akhil