Hi Ahkil > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of De Lara Guarch, > Pablo > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:37 PM > To: akhil.goyal at nxp.com; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: Remove hard coding for > nb_queue_pairs in test_cryptodev > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of > > akhil.goyal at nxp.com > > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:33 AM > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > Cc: Akhil Goyal > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: Remove hard coding for > > nb_queue_pairs in test_cryptodev > > > > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com> > > > > nb_queue_pairs should not be hard coded with device specific number. > > It should be retrieved from the device infos. > > Also in ut_setup, ts_params->conf.nb_queue_pairs is already set in > > testsuite_setup and we are not modifying it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com> > > Acked-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
The above code is correct, however it exposes a bug in QAT PMD unit tests. And some cleanup needed for unnecessary qp setup code. That cleanup then exposed a bug in aesni_mb PMD which prevents re-creating queue pairs of a different size. I have a fix and cleanup patch ready. Just not sure how best to push it? The original patch also needs rebasing, doesn't apply cleanly to the latest dpdk-next-crypto Pablo should I push all as a reply to the first patch - waiting first for that to be rebased? Or It would save Akhil a rebase and be simpler if I can include the original change in my patch and push all as a v2 superceding the original patch? Is this possible? Or should I Nack the original patch and push all instead?