Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] cryptodev: remove list ends from asymmetric crypto api

["Kusztal, ArkadiuszX" <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>]

Hi Akhil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> Sent: czwartek, 8 października 2020 21:51
> To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; ruifeng.wang@arm.com;
> michaelsh@marvell.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 4/5] cryptodev: remove list ends from asymmetric crypto
> api
> 
> Hi Arek/Fiona,
> 
> > This patch removes RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END,
> > RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END,
> > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_TYPE_LIST_END
> > enumerators from asymmetric crypto API. When asymmetric API will no
> > more be experimental adding new entries will be possible without ABI
> > breakage.
> 
> I believe XFORM_TYPE, ASYM_OP, and PADDING_TYPE are not going to Change
> in near future. Hence LIST_END should not be removed from these Enums.
> Adding a LIST END has its own benefits and we should not remove that until we
> have a solid reason for it. Moreover, these are experimental.
> We should revisit these when we think ASYM is stable.

As for XFORM_TYPE it could be extended by ECDH, even if ECPM is present (as we have DH op enums), I think EdDSA can have its own enum as well.
As for asym_op I don't know which way it will go as RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_PRIVATE_KEY_GENERATE is distinct case as it is more about generation than computation, this could be clarified in future.
As for rsa padding, I agree it fulfills today requirements.

Though yes, since it is experimental I will remove asym patch from v3 patchset.

> 
> IMO, we should only remove list ends in algo types.
> 
> Regards,
> Akhil