test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
Checks
Commit Message
Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
---
test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:20 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> 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.iremonger@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?
> 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));
> +
> + /* 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.
> +
> + 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?
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.
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.
Konstantin
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.iremonger@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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:34 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@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.iremonger@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.
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.iremonger@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*?
The global is not needed.
I have renamed it to driver_id and added it as a local variable where it is used.
> > > > 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.
In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test functions of the testsuite.
> > 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.
I will change the code to replace the valid_devs[] with one valid_dev.
> > > 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 discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL PMD.
> > > 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.
I will replace the valid_devs[] with valid_dev which contains the first crypto_null device found.
I will send a v2 patch
Regards,
Bernard.
Hi Bernard,
> > > > > 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.iremonger@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*?
>
> The global is not needed.
> I have renamed it to driver_id and added it as a local variable where it is used.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test functions of
> the testsuite.
Ok, so what prevents us to setup them earlier?
>
> > > 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.
>
> I will change the code to replace the valid_devs[] with one valid_dev.
>
> > > > 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 discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL PMD.
As we discussed offline - yes, I don't think it's too excessive to verify ipsec_autotest
with each existing driver that supports _NULL algs, but I don't see the reason why
it shouldn't support anything except crypto_null.
Konstantin
>
> > > > 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.
>
> I will replace the valid_devs[] with valid_dev which contains the first crypto_null device found.
>
> I will send a v2 patch
>
> Regards,
>
> Bernard.
Hi Konstantin,
<snip>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the
> > check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test
> functions of the testsuite.
>
> Ok, so what prevents us to setup them earlier?
This will require some refactoring of the tests, I will investigate.
<snip>
> > As discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL
> PMD.
>
> As we discussed offline - yes, I don't think it's too excessive to verify
> ipsec_autotest with each existing driver that supports _NULL algs, but I don't
> see the reason why it shouldn't support anything except crypto_null.
> Konstantin
Ok, I will investigate what needs to be done.
Regards,
Bernard.
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
#define BURST_SIZE 32
#define REORDER_PKTS 1
+static int gbl_driver_id;
+
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));
+
+ /* 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;
+ }
+
+ 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];