On 30 May 2017 at 21:24, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 May 2017 at 18:30, Bala Manoharan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 30 May 2017 at 20:46, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 30 May 2017 at 18:06, Bala Manoharan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 30 May 2017 at 20:30, Github ODP bot <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Currently odp_crypto_session_create() (unlike other creation functions) >>>>> returns int result with session being returned through pointer argument. >>>>> Replace it with odp_crypto_session_create2 directly returning a session >>>>> (or ODP_CRYPTO_SESSION_INVALID in case of an error). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <[email protected]> >>> >>> [skipped] >>> >>>>> @@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ int create_ipsec_cache_entry(sa_db_entry_t *cipher_sa, >>>>> return -1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - /* Synchronous session create for now */ >>>>> - if (odp_crypto_session_create(¶ms, &session, &ses_create_rc)) >>>>> + session = odp_crypto_session_create2(¶ms, &ses_create_rc); >>>> >>>> IMO, I would prefer not having these types of numbered extensions to >>>> an API this will be confusing on the long run. >>> >>> Well, your proposal for the name? >> >> Do we really need this change to the API? This is not such a big >> change to propose a new API. > > I think we need. > > First, we need consistency in the API usage.
Not sure about this. We have to maintain backward compatibility and having multiple APIs will create confusion for application user. > > Second, right now it is not clear even from the example/test point of view, > whether odp_crypto_session_create will set *session param in case > of error. See run_measure_one_config in > test/common_plat/performance/odp_crypto.c file. This seems valid. Why don't you update the documentation to clarify this. Regards, Bala
