[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v3 03/15] crypto/mlx5: support session operations

[Akhil Goyal]

> >
> > > > > +static void
> > > > > +mlx5_crypto_sym_session_clear(struct rte_cryptodev *dev,
> > > > > +                           struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session *sess) {
> > > > > +     struct mlx5_crypto_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private;
> > > > > +     struct mlx5_crypto_session *sess_private_data =
> > > > > +                     get_sym_session_private_data(sess,
> > > > > +dev->driver_id);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (unlikely(sess_private_data == NULL)) {
> > > > > +             DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to get session %p private data.",
> > > > > +                             sess_private_data);
> > > > > +             return;
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +     mlx5_crypto_dek_destroy(priv, sess_private_data->dek);
> > > > > +     DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Session %p was cleared.", sess_private_data);
> }
> > > >
> > > > Memory leakage, mempool is not freed.
> > >
> > > Yes, good catch, this part was missed.
> > >
> > > > IMO, this driver is not properly tested with the unit test app.
> > >
> > > The only app we tested until now is l2fwd_crypto and it works fine!
> > > We can add it to doc.
> > >
> > > > Please add a note in the documentation that it is tested with autotest.
> > >
> > >
> > > The next app we want to test with, is test-crypto-perf.
> > >
> > I would recommend to run the test app first.
> > It will catch most of your basic bugs like the one above.
> 
> It is too late for this, will add the test adjustment later.

Can we postpone the PMD to next release. I believe test application makes
The PMD look robust as per the DPDK crypto PMD API usage.
I haven't seen a PMD getting merged without test app.
And I apologize I did not mentioned it earlier, but it is kind of obvious thing
to run test app before sending it to upstream.
L2fwd-crypto is not doing data validation hence you cannot be sure that it is
working fine as per other standard stacks like Linux.

Regards,
Akhil