|SUCCESS| crypto/scheduler: fix typo

[dpdklab at iol.unh.edu]

Test-Label: ai-code-review
Test-Status: SUCCESS
https://dpdk.org/patch/163120

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-04-16

commit 6812b9bf470e ("crypto/scheduler: use unified session")
Author: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau at intel.com>

crypto/scheduler: fix typo

Small typo, pending_deq_ops used instead of pending_enq_ops.

> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> index a21b522f9f..70f8a25b70 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> @@ -191,11 +191,11 @@ mc_scheduler_worker(struct rte_cryptodev *dev)
>  					worker->qp_id,
>  					&enq_ops[pending_enq_ops_idx],
>  					pending_enq_ops);
> -			if (processed_ops < pending_deq_ops)
> +			if (processed_ops < pending_enq_ops)

Does this code correctly compare processed_ops with the right variable?
The original code compared against pending_deq_ops but the context shows
the function is rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst() which processes enqueue
operations. Can you verify the logic flow in mc_scheduler_worker() to
confirm pending_enq_ops is the correct variable to check against here?

>  				scheduler_retrieve_sessions(
>  					&enq_ops[pending_enq_ops_idx +
>  						processed_ops],
> -					pending_deq_ops - processed_ops);
> +					pending_enq_ops - processed_ops);

Does scheduler_retrieve_sessions() correctly receive pending_enq_ops -
processed_ops as its second parameter? The original used pending_deq_ops
which could cause underflow if pending_deq_ops is smaller than
processed_ops. Does this code prevent potential underflow with the
corrected variable?