From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
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 <dev@dpdk.org>; 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: <xms:HtB2YBP-hJSizX_VPVWls5Pe76_pISVQi-teggtfZSU8wotEp8gMJA>
 <xme:HtB2YB6IosLW-ER9Fc0aSXLak69522KXJWFlM_W64AH3demMTPqkflmRYeALilaQF
 LfieVaZ_2oTpldmwg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeluddgfeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
 fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
 uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
 cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr
 shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg
 ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu
 ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf
 hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl
 ohhnrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:HtB2YCkqmFzrVbqV64gquIGxd3xD-1lTJ5agu-_-7Kr6TAUxgHuUqw>
 <xmx:HtB2YCQkOtcA7nJtbSCBfpDty0tgnxEL9puh-hMo_PhnY4D0fOLN0A>
 <xmx:HtB2YBErV03QkcTJwnal4nXPf_QzdQqyjF9KcyXBDYi2-N_Iw64Bjw>
 <xmx:H9B2YFVErY5z0dRRjCY_vfJKka1i-Zg5-v8ICmUYfLkAI4JTk7YlYg>
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 <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>, Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "aconole@redhat.com" <aconole@redhat.com>,
 "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
 Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
 "ruifeng.wang@arm.com" <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
 "asomalap@amd.com" <asomalap@amd.com>,
 "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
 "g.singh@nxp.com" <g.singh@nxp.com>, Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:20:59 +0200
Message-ID: <8133851.sdFIudDCVC@thomas>
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR18MB22844D7AF6A95D51A9D83F3CD84E9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210402142424.1353789-1-ciara.power@intel.com>
 <b2905160-ba86-5ffc-0fa2-842f0d47c17b@intel.com>
 <MW2PR18MB22844D7AF6A95D51A9D83F3CD84E9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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.