Hi Fan,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:32 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; akhil.go...@nxp.com; Zhang, Roy Fan
> <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev v2 2/3] test/crypto: add unit-test for QAT direct APIs
>
> This patch adds the test to use QAT symmetric crypto direct APIs.
> The test will be enabled only when QAT Sym PMD is built.
>
> @@ -2451,7 +2615,11 @@ test_snow3g_authentication(const struct
> snow3g_hash_test_data *tdata)
> if (retval < 0)
> return retval;
>
> - ut_params->op = process_crypto_request(ts_params->valid_devs[0],
> + if (qat_api_test)
> + process_qat_api_op(ts_params->valid_devs[0], 0, ut_params->op,
> + 0, 1, 1);
[Fiona] it would be helpful wherever this is called to either use local params
with useful names, enums or comments for last 3 params, e.g.:
process_qat_api_op(ts_params->valid_devs[0], 0, ut_params->op,
0, /*is_cipher */
1, /* is_auth */
1); /* len_in_bits*/
It would be better to generalise the tests too in light of Jerin's comments.
By passing the xform to process_crypto_request(), you should be able to avoid
all the changes
to individual tests, e.g.;
in process_crypto_request(dev, op, xform )
if (direct_pmd_datapath)
switch (pmd) {
qat: process_qat_api_op();
other PMD:/*future*/
default: break;
}
else
rest of process_crypto_op fn
Unfortunately the xform is usually not available where process_crypto_request
is called, it would have to be returned from the session create function - but
though the 3 params are enough for the moment, it's likely other session params
will be needed for other tests. Or by other PMDs.
> +static int
> +test_qat_sym_direct_api(void /*argv __rte_unused, int argc __rte_unused*/)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> + RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_QAT_SYM_PMD));
> +
> + if (gbl_driver_id == -1) {
> + RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "QAT PMD must be loaded. Check that both "
> + "CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_QAT and CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_QAT_SYM "
> + "are enabled in config file to run this testsuite.\n");
> + return TEST_SKIPPED;
> + }
> +
> + qat_api_test = 1;
[Fiona] I'd suggest renaming this direct_pmd_datapath as above
This would be a good place to check that the pmd has the direct_pmd_datapath
capability.
Checks for a finer granularity capability may be needed in process_qat_api_op()
> + ret = unit_test_suite_runner(&qat_direct_api_testsuite);
> + qat_api_test = 0;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
[Fiona] It would be good to add tests that validate the frame concept -
enqueueing
and dequeueing only 1 descriptor at a time doesn't cover it.
