> 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. > Thanks for pointing this out. V5 sent.
> >>> @@ -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
