From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D0BA00C2; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:56:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2D01D588; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:56:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755231D573 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:56:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5275C022F; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:56:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= oOiducOyjpsIq/vjgS/0CvZX+bmW/zNmSSFC6ZDAx0E=; b=sfJymKM1vNBf6aT5 GLhGvHNUKRoqL2OqqYi/XFHPzcjXbrktMt71gwebxYd05DqKBcXuzIy1qZKcjFk/ lUVIAaQGJbj39VfR+oB/aVYfVByCm+yaVLrNJNTJJM6jFwjKxBm147mNHMLWhJkA aupiTtlPQSXS4MvwEeidtXo1ydxz9c60GD2fHT0ICSuJpIbmmWGNBi9Yk+zcfpXD qtCemmOaw/06ocC72REUOl1hGtMO7fw/rBsjba7Bsu8lrDK3tQwswYQQQPEHHopy iSI4/u9A+Z4D/Yl+CKoNp31G7u5il7WwVHErvxkZKkwMwroZVUOrfll7YwsIIlKv Ok1p4g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=oOiducOyjpsIq/vjgS/0CvZX+bmW/zNmSSFC6ZDAx 0E=; b=GAuHmxEpllhUnnvGQ5vPfHTVKynJYwq8e/SoRf/ehr3sy2/dNcHxzWnGg SDNNKc6sx5ugzVw8uTDCYOdFFvuMbiN8poKWmaud7jLapj4Al8RyVYgcbKyhOzbf WGfHtWNmFWcKDjpRQLBZidbMXjxpN1ai/dLDP0/i7NqiKWM/XzipVcFnT4tnVxAw UIu5cUSILo+RPwLoAedV5qQXP861mjLjOFJK1Sxmrf6dSTfy0zCF2Dkpq4lqIngP H5b18KLCD099bwAEzcaNQ0Xgj5zJYytLcaYghIh4hQE6PBWJvzSYofDPfS/umWro 5PcHPFKtoankKfMxdPBOpcGe9NRuA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrgeejgdefudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A9803280059; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:56:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , Akhil Goyal Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Doherty, Declan" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:56:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1713682.QCnGb9OGeP@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1586859760-207446-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> <9564647.0AQdONaE2F@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] test/crypto: do not check for IMB_VERSION_NUM X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 22/04/2020 11:43, Akhil Goyal: > Hi Thomas, > > 14/04/2020 19:48, Thomas Monjalon: > > > 14/04/2020 19:22, De Lara Guarch, Pablo: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > > 14/04/2020 12:22, Pablo de Lara: > > > > > > Now that capabilities are checked to see if an algorithm is supported > > > > > > by a device, there is no need to check for a specific version of a > > > > > > library used in a PMD. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and even no need to check the PMD at all. > > > > > All *_TEST_TARGET_PMD_* constants should be removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am currently working on this. However, I would like to split this effort > > > > into multiple patchsets. A first one addressing the problem of needing to > > check for > > > > specific information from PMDs (such as IMB_VERSION_NUM), which should > > not > > > > have any effect on the number of test cases ran for each PMD, and another > > one which > > > > addresses your comment, and that will enable test cases for all PMDs. > > > > This last patchset will require testing from all PMD maintainers and it is a less > > urgent > > > > problem to resolve, so we can decide if we want to merge it in this release or > > wait > > > > for more time in 20.08. > > > > > > Thanks for your efforts Pablo. > > > If the basic is working, I am for removing *_TEST_TARGET_PMD_* in 20.05, > > > and allow PMD maintainers to validate the tests during -rc phases. > > > > Some patches using capabilities are merged in the crypto test. > > > > What else is remaining? I see rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get() is still used. > > I think rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get() should be deprecated. > > > All of the cleanup cannot be done in one go. There are quite a few things which need to be cleaned > 1. many test cases are checking the PMD type for specific PMDs. That need to be removed. > Currently it is done only for the block cipher cases. > 2. many PMDs are maintaining their separate test suites. Which should be moved to a single one > 3. there are some PDCP specific cases which need to be moved to security test. > > For #1, we need to remove all calls to rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get and every PMD should check > If it has properly defined capabilities or not. > > I plan to do #2 and #3 for NXP platforms in a couple of week. May be before RC2. > I have asked all the PMD maintainers to move to a single testsuite otherwise their PMD changes will not > Be picked. That's perfect Akhil, thanks for driving it.