From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D2945523; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:00:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139C442E75; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:00:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fhigh1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CDE410D0; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:00:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EE0114035C; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:00:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1719576030; x=1719662430; bh=MbIbd+pwpJq/Bub+F0KJ32jjvnMlssVbNHdqBRXxLWE=; b= SEWFR6t9rvH6tNQYIAK9OfJhrH7QfCnadE1hSvyJZ25kAlhMM+oI7dEz6mw37anw ou0cdFi1/htgt5tFQnyoBzFUqvgPs677d2nSmZ21Hzdu3ht8mre6rMKYMvFn4t5L xwtkIsUIJrE3tZtG77erX1sf8JHC3xcjkc+heWxn5BWS+YCZRtSKhNEdFA34YfKy lj5k7+cxaBkiV07R4dxrpUpNI85rgqJGl1O5uHxsAxcB94qY5tHvqbbh9M2LBJDp BWJBgQgloKZs5C+ChQ7sTK5q/Bo0y3oEm4Qi7+cfInXNd+oFmga1gI3MmWdrAygb qDJ6aJIFUg8vHQ3eMa06xQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1719576030; x= 1719662430; bh=MbIbd+pwpJq/Bub+F0KJ32jjvnMlssVbNHdqBRXxLWE=; b=k bCgULwrV+OCQuQNp6Ov5db9MQ+dfRXW9nBcB/65zrGIaCUaN73jLmnsHHPwFgxTm Hbuwd6hGqgXJlNtnD/Qpdsj9enkDr2Ih8X4J2A3E9D24T/1OligX8lrA9+CIJymx 83dhqemflQxx0nKBmkgvgwDAUIqYXi9z+RPsFddQr0kmL+Mx69XUCYm+qReZwgCl Nv88FDWoIqLC+IQ6aqeG9knxW6Pr1jVnGJZJbf+c50NyxCgQ35Zc5hF7E2kTh5je dccxN+ToRob1kprcHMEyt4OkkYs7Qq8FYXzF9YAO9qJtbmJGYWew28lLPGUowRz7 dQ3JCKxXyGG9IfwQeON1g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrtdeigdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeduveehieevuddutdevfffgtdegkeeuveejffejgedtgeegkefg vdeugfefkeejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:00:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Patrick Robb Cc: dts@dpdk.org, dev , Luca Vizzarro , Paul Szczepanek , Jeremy Spewock , Dean Marx , Nicholas Pratte , Juraj =?utf-8?B?TGlua2XFoQ==?= , David Marchand Subject: Re: Testpmd usage in new DTS Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:00:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1871615.h9gRbJKcGU@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dts-bounces@dpdk.org Hello 27/06/2024 22:42, Patrick Robb: > Hi Thomas, > > Last November when we chatted in tech board about 2024 DTS goals, you > said testpmd should be the primary tool used to drive the testsuites, > and that if testpmd was missing some support for any DPDK features we > want to test in DTS, then the support should be added into testpmd. Yes for networking features. > So, we have recently been ramping up writing Ethernet API tests, and > have done it only with testpmd so far based on this understanding. It > seems like a good approach. Good > Today we discussed in the CI meeting whether we should port over the > l2fwd test, which is a test existing in the "old" DTS framework, based > on the l2fwd sample app. For bringing this test coverage to new DTS, I > think the correct approach is to write a testsuite which validates the > same l2 forwarding functions, but using testpmd app instead of l2fwd > app. I think this aligns with your expectation of driving testpmd > usage in new DTS, but let me know if I have the wrong idea. So does > this sound fine to you? l2fwd and l3fwd are code examples to show how to write code, they are not supposed to be designed for CI testing. What is the benefit of l2fwd compared to testpmd? There are forward modes in testpmd which should be similar to l2fwd. But here we are reaching a limit: testpmd is supposed to test driver features, not a higher level forward logic like we could see in l3fwd. Anyway testing higher level features from some libraries are not in 2024 scope I think. > And a second thing I want to raise which is tangentially related is I > guess in the future we will have to determine what other apps can be > used for tests which can't run from testpmd. I.e. right now at UNH lab > we are running cryptodev tests on an Intel Quickassist 8970 card on > our ARM server, and that test runs from an old DTS testsuite based on > dpdk-test-cryptodev-perf. I'm guessing usage of such applications > which have extensive support not existing in testpmd will be permitted > at some point. It's fairly forward looking as we are really focused on > ethdev work currently, but I figured I'd bring it up now. In general, DTS can use any app in the directory app/. So yes that's fine to use the crypto-related apps for testing crypto features.