Hi Akhil,
If you replace mock_session_create_exp.ret with mock_session_destroy_exp.ret
in mock_session_destroy() everything works fine and all test cases pass.
W dniu 18.10.2020 o 10:47, Akhil Goyal pisze:
> Hi Lukasz,
>> Hi Akhil,
>>
>> just one more thing, rest looks good
>>
>> <snip>
>>> diff --git a/app/test/test_security.c b/app/test/test_security.c
>>> index 77fd5adc6..62e4991eb 100644
>>> --- a/app/test/test_security.c
>>> +++ b/app/test/test_security.c
>>> @@ -363,8 +392,13 @@ static struct mock_session_destroy_data {
>>> static int
>>> mock_session_destroy(void *device, struct rte_security_session *sess)
>>> {
>>> - mock_session_destroy_exp.called++;
>>> + void *sess_priv = get_sec_session_private_data(sess);
>>>
>>> + mock_session_destroy_exp.called++;
>>> + if ((mock_session_create_exp.ret == 0) && (sess_priv != NULL)) {
>> mock_session_destroy_exp.ret
Here is the place you need to change. Sorry that my comment was not
clear enough.
>>> + rte_mempool_put(rte_mempool_from_obj(sess_priv),
>> sess_priv);
>>> + set_sec_session_private_data(sess, NULL);
>>> + }
>>>
>> MOCK_TEST_ASSERT_POINTER_PARAMETER(mock_session_destroy_ex
>> p, device);
>> MOCK_TEST_ASSERT_POINTER_PARAMETER(mock_session_destroy_ex
>> p, sess);
>> <snip>
>>> @@ -1371,6 +1492,7 @@ test_session_destroy_ops_failure(void)
>>> mock_session_destroy_exp.ret = -1;
>>>
>>> TEST_ASSERT_MEMPOOL_USAGE(1);
>>> + TEST_ASSERT_PRIV_MP_USAGE(1);
>>> TEST_ASSERT_SESSION_COUNT(1);
>>>
>>> int ret = rte_security_session_destroy(&ut_params->ctx,
>>> @@ -1396,6 +1518,7 @@ test_session_destroy_success(void)
>>> mock_session_destroy_exp.sess = ut_params->sess;
>>> mock_session_destroy_exp.ret = 0;
>>> TEST_ASSERT_MEMPOOL_USAGE(1);
>>> + TEST_ASSERT_PRIV_MP_USAGE(1);
>>> TEST_ASSERT_SESSION_COUNT(1);
>>>
>>> int ret = rte_security_session_destroy(&ut_params->ctx,
>>> ut_params->sess);
>>>
>> TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_destr
>> oy,
>>> ret, -1, "%d");
>>> TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_destroy_exp, 1);
>>> TEST_ASSERT_MEMPOOL_USAGE(1);
>> nit: you can add and assertion here as well: TEST_ASSERT_PRIV_MP_USAGE(1);
> Thanks for the review of the patch.
>
> This is causing the test to fail. And I cannot spend more time in debugging
> this right now.
> Since we are approaching RC1 deadline and the intent of the patch is to add a
> new
> Parameter in session create API and which is complete. The issue is with the
> security
> Tests which are trying to create mock driver APIs with no real usage.
>
> Hence, I reckon we can go ahead with this patch in RC1 and fix it later.
>
>
> @tho...@monjalon.net, @ano...@marvell.com, @Ananyev, Konstantin.
> Any thoughts from your side?
>
> Regards,
> Akhil
>
>
--
Lukasz Wojciechowski
Principal Software Engineer
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Office +48 22 377 88 25
l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
