DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
To: "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
	Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "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>,
	NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v2 3/6] test/crypto: refactor to use sub-testsuites
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:18:12 +0000
Message-ID: <MW2PR18MB22844D7AF6A95D51A9D83F3CD84E9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b2905160-ba86-5ffc-0fa2-842f0d47c17b@intel.com>

Hi Declan,

> > //snip
> >
> >>   	nb_devs = rte_cryptodev_count();
> >>   	if (nb_devs < 1) {
> >>   		RTE_LOG(WARNING, USER1, "No crypto devices found?\n");
> >> @@ -838,6 +630,228 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
> >>   	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static int
> >> +qat_testsuite_setup(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	return testsuite_params_setup();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int
> >> +aesni_mb_testsuite_setup(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	int32_t nb_devs, ret;
> >> +	nb_devs = rte_cryptodev_device_count_by_driver(
> >> +			rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> >> +			RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_AESNI_MB_PMD)));
> >> +	if (nb_devs < 1) {
> >> +		ret =
> >> rte_vdev_init(RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_AESNI_MB_PMD), NULL);
> >> +
> >> +		TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
> >> +			"Failed to create instance of pmd : %s",
> >> +			RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_AESNI_MB_PMD));
> >> +	}
> >> +	return testsuite_params_setup();
> >> +}
> >
> > Why is it required to have a separate function for each of the PMD?
> > I believe a single function with an argument should be sufficient.
> > And in that single function a simple switch case may process the vdevs
> differently.
> >
> > As of now, it looks that moving the unnecessary duplicate code from
> > one place to another.
> >
> > This was one cleanup we have been looking forward to from quite some
> time.
> > Every time a new PMD comes, a separate function is formed and the length
> of
> > the code increases.
> >
> >
> > //snip
> 
> The virtual device creation code could be dropped completely if user is
> guaranteed to create the required crypto PMD from EAL devargs and we
> could assume that the first crypto device of the test suite type is
> always used?

Agreed.
 
> 
> >>
> >> -static struct unit_test_suite cryptodev_virtio_testsuite = {
> >> +static struct unit_test_suite cryptodev_virtio_sub_testsuite = {
> >>   	.suite_name = "Crypto VIRTIO Unit Test Suite",
> >> -	.setup = testsuite_setup,
> >> -	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
> >>   	.unit_test_cases = {
> >>   		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown,
> >> test_AES_cipheronly_all),
> >>
> >> @@ -13935,15 +14107,12 @@ static struct unit_test_suite
> >> cryptodev_virtio_testsuite = {
> >>   	}
> >>   };
> >>
> >> -static struct unit_test_suite cryptodev_caam_jr_testsuite  = {
> >> -	.suite_name = "Crypto CAAM JR Unit Test Suite",
> >> -	.setup = testsuite_setup,
> >> -	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
> >> +static struct unit_test_suite cryptodev_caam_jr_sub_testsuite = {
> >> +	.suite_name = "Crypto CAAM JR Sub Unit Test Suite",
> >>   	.unit_test_cases = {
> >>   		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown,
> >> -			     test_device_configure_invalid_dev_id),
> >> -		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown,
> >> -			     test_multi_session),
> >> +				test_device_configure_invalid_dev_id),
> >> +		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, test_multi_session),
> >>
> >>   		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, test_AES_chain_all),
> >>   		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, test_3DES_chain_all),
> >> @@ -13955,58 +14124,28 @@ static struct unit_test_suite
> >> cryptodev_caam_jr_testsuite  = {
> >>   	}
> >>   };
> >
> > 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.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-14 11:18 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 [this message]
2021-04-14 11:20         ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-14 11:22           ` Akhil Goyal
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=MW2PR18MB22844D7AF6A95D51A9D83F3CD84E9@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