From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: "Krakowiak, LukaszX" <lukaszx.krakowiak@intel.com>,
"Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] test: add UT for power turbo feature
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:01:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f769c7af-216d-e3f7-95f8-e415c0147223@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DC695E1BE92F754CA2AE786BE043D81318DDD43C@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 03-Apr-19 10:07 AM, Krakowiak, LukaszX wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 07-Mar-19 1:59 PM, Lukasz Krakowiak wrote:
>>> Add UT check_power_turbo.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Krakowiak <lukaszx.krakowiak@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c | 72
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>>> b/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c index d099f2f47..c75c9bf1c 100644
>>> --- a/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -366,6 +366,59 @@ check_power_freq_min(void)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Check rte_power_turbo() */
>>> +static int
>>> +check_power_turbo(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + if (rte_power_turbo_status(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID) == 0) {
>>> + printf("Turbo not available on lcore %u, skipping test\n",
>>> + TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>
>> Misleading indentation, please add two tabs to the second line of
>> printf() statement.
>>
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* test with an invalid lcore id */
>>> + ret = rte_power_freq_enable_turbo(TEST_POWER_LCORE_INVALID);
>>> + if (ret >= 0) {
>>> + printf("Unexpectedly enable turbo successfully "
>>> + "on lcore %u\n",
>> TEST_POWER_LCORE_INVALID);
>>
>> Please don't break up strings to multiple lines.
>>
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> + ret = rte_power_freq_enable_turbo(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + printf("Fail to enable turbo on lcore %u\n",
>>> +
>> TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>
>> I wish there was a middle ground between no indentation and way too much
>> indentation...
>>
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Check the current frequency */
>>> + ret = check_cur_freq(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID, 0);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return -1;
>>> +
>>> + /* test with an invalid lcore id */
>>> + ret = rte_power_freq_disable_turbo(TEST_POWER_LCORE_INVALID);
>>> + if (ret >= 0) {
>>> + printf("Unexpectedly disable turbo successfully "
>>> + "on lcore %u\n",
>> TEST_POWER_LCORE_INVALID);
>>
>> Same as above, don't break up strings.
>>
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> + ret = rte_power_freq_disable_turbo(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + printf("Fail to disable turbo on lcore %u\n",
>>> +
>> TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>
>> Same as above, two tabs is enough indentation.
>>
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Check the current frequency */
>>> + ret = check_cur_freq(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID, 1);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return -1;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int
>>> test_power_cpufreq(void)
>>> {
>>> @@ -427,6 +480,21 @@ test_power_cpufreq(void)
>>> "been initialised\n");
>>> goto fail_all;
>>> }
>>> + if (rte_power_turbo_status == NULL) {
>>> + printf("rte_power_turbo_status should not be NULL,
>> environment has not "
>>> + "been initialised\n");
>>
>> Here and below:
>>
>> I don't think saying *why* it should not be NULL - just saying that it shouldn't be
>> NULL is enough. Maybe mention why it's supposed to be not NULL in comments
>> here.
>>
>> Also, i have a suspicion that the message is wrong - why would status be null if
>> the environment was initialized? Presumably it's the other way around?
>
> I think this is correctly: if env was initialized, pointer != NULL, otherwise env wasn't initialized.
> Rest of all, you are right: coding style issues. Thanks.
The check is if rte_power_turbo_status is equal to NULL. If the check
fails (i.e. rte_power_turbo_status is not NULL), we get an error message
saying that rte_power_turbo_status should not be NULL. That doesn't
compute :) Either it should not be NULL and the check is wrong, or it
should be NULL and the error message is wrong.
>>
>>> + goto fail_all;
>>> + }
>>> + if (rte_power_freq_enable_turbo == NULL) {
>>> + printf("rte_power_freq_enable_turbo should not be NULL,
>> environment has not "
>>> + "been initialised\n");
>>> + goto fail_all;
>>> + }
>>> + if (rte_power_freq_disable_turbo == NULL) {
>>> + printf("rte_power_freq_disable_turbo should not be NULL,
>> environment has not "
>>> + "been initialised\n");
>>> + goto fail_all;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> ret = rte_power_exit(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>> @@ -502,6 +570,10 @@ test_power_cpufreq(void)
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> goto fail_all;
>>>
>>> + ret = check_power_turbo();
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + goto fail_all;
>>> +
>>> ret = rte_power_exit(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>> printf("Cannot exit power management for lcore %u\n",
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Anatoly
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-03 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-07 13:59 [PATCH 0/3] test: improve test coverage for power library Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-03-07 13:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] test: rename test_power_acpi_cpufreq.c -> app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-03-27 15:05 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-03-07 13:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] test: remove prefix _acpi from UT power function/test names Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-03-27 15:07 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-03-29 22:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-07 13:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] test: add UT for power turbo feature Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-03-27 15:13 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-04-03 9:07 ` Krakowiak, LukaszX
2019-04-03 10:01 ` Burakov, Anatoly [this message]
2019-04-03 10:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] test: improve test coverage for power library Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-04-03 10:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] test: rename test_power_acpi_cpufreq.c -> app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-04-03 10:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] test: remove prefix _acpi from UT power function/test names Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-04-15 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] " Hunt, David
2019-04-15 15:32 ` Kevin Traynor
2019-04-03 10:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] test: add UT for power turbo feature Lukasz Krakowiak
2019-04-15 15:22 ` [dpdk-dev] " Hunt, David
2019-06-07 8:45 ` Hajkowski, MarcinX
2019-04-22 20:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] test: improve test coverage for power library Thomas Monjalon
2019-07-05 7:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f769c7af-216d-e3f7-95f8-e415c0147223@intel.com \
--to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=lukaszx.krakowiak@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.