From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0CEA0562; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:21:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF121619CA; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:21:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DD31619C9 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:21:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7C6580523; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:21:03 -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=fm3; bh= Pgj0oFCbn2HZ69TJrMNKQijaKkS+EEpCXVVB+8Hk2MM=; b=Uy3Q7CQuxyiuLMS1 iMrMDVHYR47KnShwONyhQVmeyrdwwN1CdNxL9Pb67PmJTq17e5r8gu61WvwHBDtz XgMcjiRIqyLMD2YXiHD4tReQ2c9uvLPyQ9P0HHZrPlBiaVeclpm4xBecRl18Aw+z q2t9QeruvGH76MBia8mitrrEb/6qbNkpVEUj+Tl2y7+IunXDLPKjvsxtALKyrcak 81A+xWr3UjpTdIi14O2wO0A0prSKD3c6H6dOcsEx66Xx/FlYPMz2/fCrQwiw5wvF yvXU6ThiyJ22FitykJ8ilQVZiRStT9L6eT1z6+RPp2ZtklMCPT2lo1CmfCul6mpJ Q9vaeQ== 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=Pgj0oFCbn2HZ69TJrMNKQijaKkS+EEpCXVVB+8Hk2 MM=; b=QswMoTA0eiLVDJ1+bLR685SY/m2jHDqnEyM72MXg8pJPRPCHGyd9Iraoo An2JF7wtaGphSPUxJPIaD6I0BHRL/i6nASWUdgGgx6W+UP3yuQj0CSQVDyt/AIIm lDJSjfTc7ymUzk3CR1sErdc+e9BrmCnn6P+PDV3eneZCjbJUjGEN1M6puya9dAKw 7oZxQOgIyNH9fKmzA/pVP0N5eN59s+isTD88cJcTol+ZGJveL+2NvrkrAh4BTicS WxEQrujVtJxrapSmAohab5+k58Tsg+xuTuTTH0/cLWH47E2lIJIezjAh2rY67hIy Fg0/viwR+Pvgqzlmm+sw3NwEylcfA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeluddgfeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght 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 EED6B24005C; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:21:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Doherty, Declan" , Ciara Power , Akhil Goyal Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "aconole@redhat.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , Anoob Joseph , "ruifeng.wang@arm.com" , "asomalap@amd.com" , "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" , "g.singh@nxp.com" , Matan Azrad Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:20:59 +0200 Message-ID: <8133851.sdFIudDCVC@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210402142424.1353789-1-ciara.power@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v2 3/6] test/crypto: refactor to use sub-testsuites X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 14/04/2021 13:18, Akhil Goyal: > > > Splitting the complete testsuite into logical generic algo based sub testsuite > > > Is a good idea. I appreciate that. > > > > > > But introducing PMD based test suite is not recommended. We have been > > > trying from past few releases to clean this up. And this patch is again > > introducing > > > the same. When I first saw this series, I saw only the algo based splitting > > and > > > when it was run on the board, it was showing results in an organized way. > > > But this was not expected that, PMD based test suites are reintroduced by > > > Intel who helped in removing them in last few releases. > > > > > > This will make an unnecessary addition of duplicate code whenever a new > > PMD > > > is introduced. > > > > > > I recommend to use a single parent suite - cryptodev_testsuite and there > > > Can be multiple sub testsuites based on Algos etc. but not on the basis of > > PMD. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Akhil > > > > > > > Hey Akhil, I understand the sentiment of this, we were just trying to > > avoid necessary failures by executing testsuites which aren't supported > > by the PMD under test, and we're confident that all testsuites/tests are > > correctly verifying their capabilities requirements. If we add some code > > into the testsuite setup functions to test capabilities required for the > > testsuites vs those required by the PMD then we could do as you are > > suggesting. If we can make this change quickly would you consider this > > patchset for inclusion in RC2? > > I can take these patches upto RC2. Please don't merge patches which go in the wrong direction.