12/03/2026 19:48, Andrew Bailey: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:08 PM Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That's a bit strange to read, > > because a crypto test can be functional or performance. > > I suppose we can re-discuss the classification of the tests. > > If the only need here is about the traffic generator, > > we could make it "raw input" or something like that? > > > > I agree that "crypto" is not exactly a true description of the > purpose for this test type. It is probably better for the test type > to explicitly describe it's purpose. maybe NO_GEN/NO_GENERATOR > or NO_TG. It just so happens with this series that crypto tests are the > only cases with this type, which was the cause for the initial name > but should change in the future. Furthermore, we could divide this > into performance and functional versions of this flag.
Yes I think we need to consider the level of abstraction required here, and the cases we want to cover.
