From: Akhil Goyal <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>, "Doherty, Declan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ciara Power <email@example.com> Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, Anoob Joseph <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matan Azrad <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v2 3/6] test/crypto: refactor to use sub-testsuites Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:22:45 +0000 Message-ID: <MW2PR18MB22844C0F756FB35FFD3110C7D84E9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <8133851.sdFIudDCVC@thomas> > > > > 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. > I agreed to take patches by RC2, if above comments are addressed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 11:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-02 14:24 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] test: refactor crypto unit test framework Ciara Power 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] app/test: refactor of unit test suite runner Ciara Power 2021-04-05 12:10 ` Aaron Conole 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] test: introduce parent testsuite format Ciara Power 2021-04-05 12:30 ` Aaron Conole 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] test/crypto: refactor to use sub-testsuites Ciara Power 2021-04-13 17:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal 2021-04-13 18:17 ` Thomas Monjalon 2021-04-14 11:12 ` Doherty, Declan 2021-04-14 11:18 ` Akhil Goyal 2021-04-14 11:20 ` Thomas Monjalon 2021-04-14 11:22 ` Akhil Goyal [this message] 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] test/crypto: move testsuite params to header file Ciara Power 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] test/crypto: fix return value on test skipped Ciara Power 2021-04-13 17:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal 2021-04-02 14:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] test/crypto: dynamically build blockcipher suite Ciara Power 2021-04-06 1:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] test: refactor crypto unit test framework Ruifeng Wang
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=MW2PR18MB22844C0F756FB35FFD3110C7D84E9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
DPDK patches and discussions This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \ email@example.com public-inbox-index dev Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git