[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] test/crypto: close PMD after tests

[Dybkowski, AdamX]

Thanks for spotting this.
I'll move the call to rte_cryptodev_close into the function testsuite_teardown and send v3.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil at marvell.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 April, 2021 14:16
> To: Dybkowski, AdamX <adamx.dybkowski at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> <arkadiuszx.kusztal at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] test/crypto: close PMD after tests
> 
> > The pmd is initialized in the setup function.
> > This patch adds one extra step inside the teardown function: the call
> > to the rte_cryptodev_close apart of the call to rte_cryptodev_stop
> > function that existed before.
> >
> > I don't see any sense of calling the stop function inside the setup,
> > in my opinion it's much better to do it during the teardown.
> >
> 
> Sorry, I wanted to refer to testsuite_teardown() instead of ut_teardown().
> The reason is that, vdevs are initialized in testsuite_setup and not ut_setup.
> Hence corresponding reverse function should be in testsuite_teardown().
> 
> -akhil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil at marvell.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, 5 April, 2021 20:59
> > > To: Akhil Goyal <gakhil at marvell.com>; Dybkowski, AdamX
> > > <adamx.dybkowski at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan
> > > <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> > > <arkadiuszx.kusztal at intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] test/crypto: close PMD after
> > > tests
> > >
> > > Hi Adam/Arek,
> > >
> > > Could you please reply to the below query.
> > >
> > > > > This patch adds closing of the PMD after running the tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski at intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  app/test/test_cryptodev.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/app/test/test_cryptodev.c
> > > > > b/app/test/test_cryptodev.c index f91debc16..ea965a64a 100644
> > > > > --- a/app/test/test_cryptodev.c
> > > > > +++ b/app/test/test_cryptodev.c
> > > > > @@ -928,6 +928,7 @@ ut_teardown(void)
> > > > >  	struct crypto_testsuite_params *ts_params =
> &testsuite_params;
> > > > >  	struct crypto_unittest_params *ut_params =
> &unittest_params;
> > > > >  	struct rte_cryptodev_stats stats;
> > > > > +	int res;
> > > > >
> > > > >  	/* free crypto session structure */  #ifdef RTE_LIB_SECURITY
> > > > > @@
> > > > > -976,8 +977,11 @@ ut_teardown(void)
> > > > >
> > > > >  	rte_cryptodev_stats_get(ts_params->valid_devs[0],
> &stats);
> > > > >
> > > > > -	/* Stop the device */
> > > > > +	/* Stop and close the device */
> > > > >  	rte_cryptodev_stop(ts_params->valid_devs[0]);
> > > > > +	res = rte_cryptodev_close(ts_params->valid_devs[0]);
> > > > > +	if (res)
> > > > > +		RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Crypto device close error
> %d\n",
> > > res);
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't this be part of testsuite_setup() instead of ut_teardown()?
> > > > In cases of vdev, devices are initialized as part of testsuite_setup().
> > > >
> > > > Should we also call rte_cryptodev_queue_pair_release from
> > > ut_teardown?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Akhil