On 14.04.2017 16:25, Bill Fischofer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Bala Manoharan
> <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Regards,
>> Bala
>>
>>
>> On 14 April 2017 at 16:52, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
>>> <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> Instead of having magic 0-1-2 numbers, let's have the special enum for
>>>> feature support levels (unsupported/supported/preferred).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/odp/api/spec/ipsec.h | 56
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/odp/api/spec/ipsec.h b/include/odp/api/spec/ipsec.h
>>>> index a0ceb11a..7011e3cf 100644
>>>> --- a/include/odp/api/spec/ipsec.h
>>>> +++ b/include/odp/api/spec/ipsec.h
>>>> @@ -224,44 +224,46 @@ typedef struct odp_ipsec_outbound_config_t {
>>>> } odp_ipsec_outbound_config_t;
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> + * IPSEC operation mode support
>>>> + */
>>>> +typedef enum odp_ipsec_op_mode_support_t {
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Mode is not supported
>>>> + */
>>>> + ODP_IPSEC_OP_MODE_UNSUPPORTED = 0,
>>>
>>> This looks good, but can this be shortened from
>>> odp_ipsec_op_mode_support_t to something like odp_ipsec_support_t? The
>>> enums could then be ODP_IPSEC_UNSUPPORTED / SUPPORTED / PREFERRED.
>>> That's a lot less typing and just as clear, it seems.
>>>
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Mode is supported
>>>> + */
>>>> + ODP_IPSEC_OP_MODE_SUPPORTED,
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Mode is supported and preferred
>>>> + */
>>>> + ODP_IPSEC_OP_MODE_PREFERRED,
>>>> +} odp_ipsec_op_mode_support_t;
>>
>> There is a generic use for this support mode eg in cryto sync vs async
>> so maybe we can create a generic enum ODP_MODE_SUPPORTED to be used in
>> different modules.
>>
>
> +1 for Bala's suggestion.
Any suggestion for the header? I can't find one generic enough.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
