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 05514A0577; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B922F1D506; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0C11D455 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:48:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175FD5C0354; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:48:43 -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=mesmtp; bh=F0+senMhbVQ9Mtn+55L/81EDT7epszlBUszIN+JmnjI=; b=ZGBRl9YdOQqu 1Ja9+WTHyq2aaOq1OR1AgTvv5U2dvqbFAK2CVMSmjxI+XEpwvZgW9UVVjq+A4v2Q vhwo7o6ivVlDHe4BRIsIhSV+g3+5gOnQwkWB4THWTgsChqPxu4bF7+p5cygmlt9P CGF/4lljBZhpNhL2aiYKGMFrTUOscDo= 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=F0+senMhbVQ9Mtn+55L/81EDT7epszlBUszIN+Jmn jI=; b=NQQUA7auKnHvGs2jaPIypR9oJOmKc9YPrX7SlkfBmtrw2vgEgN65fhJvu V7yiuxNEvQ9eJVMLhtvieDUzhGiiaHcnI5jOZSSOBT9p/ptSkO1zzXhpKtWKJzVI /EE+kCoRciiHkngCDsVVNgltDoANq/k5ZX6xa/75XkK9G0+k/NzeYXbcya2Dps97 Vv95nz09nJuRem1q3FpXu5nRPx6ZFawU3FnbeehAALzHGlhZwqgWsnKTEraTYSkE l5Ew7knaAEl9zCI/XMaq91KYr74aVMnmz/802fPq4JahDsygk6EFYznazT5o8r4D p6H8wt4kaFUY4ixPSouwyORUqAM9w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrfedugdduudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 9770F3060060; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" Cc: "Doherty, Declan" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:48:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3924051.KRxA6XjA2N@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1586859760-207446-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> <3209863.IobQ9Gjlxr@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" 14/04/2020 19:22, De Lara Guarch, Pablo: > Hi Thomas, > > 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.