Hi Fiona, > > Hi Akhil, > > > > > Hi Fiona/Adam, > > > > > This patch adds a new test suite for verification of the "internal > > > QAT IM buffer too small" case handling. These unit tests are > > > specific to the QAT PMD only - that's why they are contained in > > > a separate test suite. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > > Why do we need to have separate testsuite for QAT? > > Can't we have a single one and based on capability of the driver, > > Determine which tests need to be skipped in case they are not supported. > > This would create a mess in the longer run just like cryptodev. > > > > Please fix this, we cannot take this patch as is. > > [Fiona] Yes, I understand your concern and we considered including in the main > suite. > However these tests are not based on something that can be > checked in capabilities. They are tests to hone in on a specific corner case > based on a QAT limitation in its intermediate buffer size. So some of the > tests are to validate that the recent changes we made in the PMD correctly > work around that limitation, but other tests are negative and expected to fail > as provoking a corner-case that still exists. Other devices would probably > not fail > the same tests.
Does that mean that all PMDs will pass with the newly added testcase which is for A corner case in QAT. If that is the case what is the issue in adding that in the main Test suite. It will get passed in all PMDs, isn't it? Am I missing something? I believe we should not have PMD specific test suites, rather it should be based on Capabilities to identify the cases which should be run for that particular PMD. > This was why we felt it better to have a qat-specific suite. > We would expect any future tests to go into the main suite, so don't think > this > should cause a > mess in the future. > >
