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 424E4A058A; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:39:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D118C1E915; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:39:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2070.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE801E912 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:39:19 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QUS4DC4sH/yZ4sS/Co4AX680LIbTAwHiIVrp09nCxdUIiCETzw+Qexw6BCodGSVnh9/k1T8vmc0LFtrGYAS/1gu6iqgeqyRN/oYtwlsea3h36Nh8+ddSmOhcj4KP94BBUQx0E4QshFoEZV3iRoVttbv7Nax8DDwMpAjbKrkFXF0phVcon8L37pJDeydngvMo18Syt5TPnlEy/knC8/Qms69Gu6KdsTEOUlEhHKHr3+5DF9r+tHhybkUbzeyzacnd8pDnS1JLpyvD8SHX0EgtXeSv8OsbsIiq4OO6B3Qi/Kfu1TPE72NnBJgnTb70rZwG/fogOJ9u99nd4huHRLvNBw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Zeb51LJGLntcjp9pl7aMVEvxutErOkICQjA9nrCELJk=; b=WCqrRCBAn4u7h47gpBjV/ilvCEIVTPkEg8b6c7Xvf1BfK6sEaU0NYYf8DEk1vZRvyTNuIPYH3haK5xRtHFunVVKHQn98eUnA6gt4d0bdgTE2Ma9rZjy5hw88BFU07aoTlQfxe+QBJDTvFpSjs2xpmXhelWXpzFibLpr83qbI84eGrTx1xIJWXdhRxkdLEBDEK/cCbIKZi9ykRpG3PsLxqVwza154PjAh8hHRRyJsG07ovLRppTNTO0bzRzRhhaDDNKjLXzYt2CqXlgDsgbZWKg0bQZyaGPqY46avwSg8tXBKVANZNflU1G6Gy9yz/Co82oSxomuDRsDn5tnCaAHBpg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nxp.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nxp.com; dkim=pass header.d=nxp.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Zeb51LJGLntcjp9pl7aMVEvxutErOkICQjA9nrCELJk=; b=QKtboHkjqRRKV7MP7M/kZqHYhi/H/99vIJjEfEYM98N4msX8X2spSisJi1RhmMfinxN6YSUdpiTyNkGdHcCuk8KdMewY2NvqvyVTNv1e711jca6MinlemiDtHjeZ009+vHvHL6ymaeUnu5ADRbwABeih8yqg+Ymz949GcX1pwmU= Received: from VI1PR04MB3168.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:802:6::10) by VI1PR04MB4447.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:76::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2921.29; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:39:18 +0000 Received: from VI1PR04MB3168.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8c03:2f5:3b48:ba74]) by VI1PR04MB3168.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8c03:2f5:3b48:ba74%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2921.027; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:39:18 +0000 From: Akhil Goyal To: "Trahe, Fiona" , "Dybkowski, AdamX" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Shally Verma Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests Thread-Index: AQHWDaRhlhVWnQmb702KIK9DOAfFGqh6jO/QgAEECoCAAAT/sIAAEpIAgAA0SrCAAAUjAIABnMUA Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:39:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20200408125101.25764-1-adamx.dybkowski@intel.com> <20200408125101.25764-3-adamx.dybkowski@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=akhil.goyal@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [45.118.167.79] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7fce5ae0-e3ad-4308-0b2f-08d7e2e57dc3 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR04MB4447: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0376ECF4DD x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:VI1PR04MB3168.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(136003)(376002)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(9686003)(71200400001)(55016002)(5660300002)(8676002)(81156014)(8936002)(33656002)(2906002)(86362001)(4326008)(26005)(186003)(478600001)(52536014)(316002)(66476007)(76116006)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66946007)(110136005)(44832011)(7696005)(6506007)(160913001)(15963001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: mvaHHXQSKrd0T/CtfF2MfLZsD97+v8rORmMQsHwzM/nHWhKmB06BfRFTtpSCs5/Xkde+fGFshtRiSx/Xfu6eKVOro9gNZVgVxigKeSnHwLZaMQmz8XjYZkTV5b6K44ykjYAoK8B2A7i8wAropKPiIg== x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7fce5ae0-e3ad-4308-0b2f-08d7e2e57dc3 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Apr 2020 15:39:18.0097 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: jt9Y0z1+yong+bVqPtQs2xoUmgvMCfMsmhMRHKOGzoc6O9Sf0r3E1MJF8K1VrrodtvY/bqW8zgC/j/xp+OHkvw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR04MB4447 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests 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" > > > > > > Hi Fiona/Adam, > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds a new test suite for verification of the "int= ernal > > > > > > > QAT IM buffer too small" case handling. These unit tests are > > > > > > > specific to the QAT PMD only - that's why they are contained = in > > > > > > > a separate test suite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to have separate testsuite for QAT? > > > > > > Can't we have a single one and based on capability of the drive= r, > > > > > > Determine which tests need to be skipped in case they are not > supported. > > > > > > This would create a mess in the longer run just like cryptodev. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please fix this, we cannot take this patch as is. > > > > > > > > > > [Fiona] Yes, I understand your concern and we considered includin= g in the > > > main > > > > > suite. > > > > > However these tests are not based on something that can be > > > > > checked in capabilities. They are tests to hone in on a specific = corner case > > > > > based on a QAT limitation in its intermediate buffer size. So som= e of the > > > > > tests are to validate that the recent changes we made in the PMD > correctly > > > > > work around that limitation, but other tests are negative and exp= ected to > fail > > > > > as provoking a corner-case that still exists. Other devices would= probably > not > > > fail > > > > > the same tests. > > > > > > > > Does that mean that all PMDs will pass with the newly added testcas= e > which is > > > for > > > > A corner case in QAT. If that is the case what is the issue in addi= ng that in > the > > > main > > > > Test suite. It will get passed in all PMDs, isn't it? Am I missing = something? > > > > > > > > I believe we should not have PMD specific test suites, rather it sh= ould be > based > > > on > > > > Capabilities to identify the cases which should be run for that par= ticular > PMD. > > > [Fiona] yes, several of the cases should pass on all PMDs. > > > So we could move those into the main suite. > > > But what to do about the negative tests? > > > Example: If a very large data buffer is passed to QAT to compress wit= h dyn > > > compression, it will get > > > split in the PMD into many smaller requests to the hardware. However = if the > > > number > > > of requests is bigger than can fit on the qp then this will never suc= ceed. The > test > > > validates that the PMD behaves appropriately in this expected error c= ase. > That > > > same > > > case would probably not have an error on another device. Maybe we sho= uld > just > > > leave out > > > such negative tests, but I find them useful as they validate the know= n > behaviour. > > > The buffer size used in the test is based on the known size QAT can h= andle > and > > > the > > > corner case in which QAT will return an error. > > > > > > I see 4 options to handle this: > > > 1. Leave out those tests > > > 2. Use a qat-specific test suite only for negative cases which are co= nstructed > > > based on specific qat internal meta-data. > > > 3. Include the negative tests in the main suite, but only run them on= QAT (by > > > checking driver type) > > > 4. include the negative tests in the main suite, run them on all, exp= ecting a > FAIL > > > from QAT and a PASS from other devices. > > > > > > My preference is for 2. > > > But up to you. > > > > > I would say 4 is better. And why do you say negative cases will fail on= QAT and > pass on all other. > > The test cases are to test the library APIs which are same for all the = PMDs and > the behavior should > > Be same. > [Fiona] I've explained above why QAT fails, sorry if it isn't clear. > Any device can have errors - it's not an API or capability issue, it's a = device > limitation in a very unlikely corner case. > So 4 is ok? i.e. if there is conditional code in the UT expecting differe= nt result > depending on PMD type? > If not, we'll revert to 1 and leave out those tests. I am still not convinced how different PMDs will behave differently for a p= articular case. Even if QAT/any PMD has a corner case, the test case will fail in that case= . You mean you want to make that case pass if the corner case has hit because= you have A known issue reported for that case and you don't want to highlight that i= n the test summary? I am not sure if that is a good thing to do. If the case is failing, then it should report as failed even if you have a = defined known issue for that. We don't need to add any checks for PMD types. Regards, Akhil