From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/test: Remove hard coding for
	nb_queue_pairs	in test_cryptodev
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:25:06 +0200
Message-ID: <2002488.2H5o8Bgc8G@xps13>
References: <20160926163300.22990-1-akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
 <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8973C9FE57E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B435890E9364@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
 "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
To: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDBF2B84
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:25:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w84so301542892wmg.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B435890E9364@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-09-29 14:12, Trahe, Fiona:
> > > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@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@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@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.