DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
	Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.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>
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.

  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 \
    --to=gakhil@marvell.com \
    --cc=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
    --cc=asomalap@amd.com \
    --cc=ciara.power@intel.com \
    --cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=g.singh@nxp.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=matan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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 \
		dev@dpdk.org
	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