> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 7:25 AM > To: Trahe, Fiona > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo; akhil.goyal at nxp.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: Remove hard coding for > nb_queue_pairs in test_cryptodev > > 2016-09-29 14:12, Trahe, Fiona: > > > > 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? > > My preference goes to a v2.
Agree, send a v2, including your name and Akhil's. Thanks, Pablo
