> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:34 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
>
> 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.
Sorry but referencing someone else code is not an answer.
Why do *you* need it *here*?
>
> >
> > > 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.
I still think that the valid way to check supported algorithms is to check
device capabilities,
not the driver name.
> 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.
Yes.
> The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this
> case crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.
But we need/use only one.
>
> > 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.
In fact there is no reason to be crypto_null only.
I think it could be any crypto-dev that does support NULL auth/cipher.
>
> > 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.
