Hi Konstantin
<snip>
> > Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> >
> > Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> >
> > Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c index
> > ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> > --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
> > #define BURST_SIZE 32
> > #define REORDER_PKTS 1
> >
> > +static int gbl_driver_id;
> > +
>
> Why do you need that global here?
test_ipsec.c is based on test_cryptodev.c.
gbl_driver_id used to store the ID of the required driver.
>
> > struct user_params {
> > enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
> > enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher; @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@
> > testsuite_setup(void) {
> > struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
> > struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> > - uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> > + uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
> > size_t sess_sz;
> >
> > memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params)); @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@
> > testsuite_setup(void)
> > return TEST_FAILED;
> > }
> >
> > - ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> > + gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> > + RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
These tests only work with the crypto_null PMD's, gbl_driver_id is set to the
crypto_null PMD id here.
> > +
> > + /* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> > + for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> > + rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> > + if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> > + ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++]
> = i;
> > + }
>
> I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver
> name.
I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.
This is how it is done in test_cryptodev.c.
I think it makes sense to mirror the test_cryptodev.c implementation.
> > +
> > + if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> > + return TEST_FAILED;
> >
> > /* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
> > dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];
>
> If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session size, why do
> you
> keep going though all devs in the loop above?
There may be several crypto devs present for example, crypto_aesni_mb0,
crypto_aseni_mb1, crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.
The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this case
crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.
> Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all vald_devs[]
> to init
> session:
> s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
> if (s == NULL)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
> for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
> rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
> ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
> if (rc != 0)
> break;
> }
>
> I think we need either to determine max private session size based on *all*
> valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.
The valid_devs[] array only contains crypto_null PMD's
The code is using the crypto_null PMD only.
> As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is no point
> to
> have an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.
The test program may be started with several crypto_dev PMD's for example:
test -c f -n 4 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb0 --vdev crypto_null0 --vdev
crypto_aesni_mb1 --vdev crypto_dev_null1
In this case the valid_devs[] array will contain crypto_dev_null0 and
crypto_dev_null1.
> Konstantin
>
>
Regards,
Bernard.
