From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] eal: add common test assert macros Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:46:59 +0530 Message-ID: <20180110191658.GB28342@jerin> References: <20171212192713.17620-1-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <20171214150138.25667-1-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <20171214150138.25667-2-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC9A88@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20171215090445.huivudbztoxknb3j@Pavan-LT> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC9DFF@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20171215113241.donmary6yesyssle@Pavan-LT> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "Eads, Gage" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "nipun.gupta@nxp.com" , "Ma, Liang J" , dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Return-path: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0065.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA3B1B1C7 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:17:26 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171215113241.donmary6yesyssle@Pavan-LT> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" -----Original Message----- > Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:02:42 +0530 > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula > To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , > "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , > "santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com" , > "Richardson, Bruce" , "Van Haaren, Harry" > , "Eads, Gage" , > "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "nipun.gupta@nxp.com" > , "Ma, Liang J" > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/11] eal: add common test assert macros > User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:58:10AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula [mailto:pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com] > > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:05 AM > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com; > > > Richardson, Bruce ; Van Haaren, Harry ; Eads, Gage ; > > > hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; nipun.gupta@nxp.com; Ma, Liang J > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/11] eal: add common test assert macros > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 06:43:24PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pavan Nikhilesh > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:01 PM > > > > > To: jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com; Richardson, Bruce ; Van > > > > > Haaren, Harry ; Eads, Gage ; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; nipun.gupta@nxp.com; > > > > > Ma, Liang J > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pavan Nikhilesh > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/11] eal: add common test assert macros > > > > > > > > > > Adding common test assertion macros for unit testing. > > > > > > > > Wonder what's wrong with existing RTE_ASSERT() and RTE_VERIFY()? > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > The existing RTE_ASSERT/VERIFY use rte_panic(). > > > > Yes, and wouldn't you expect that behavior from assert() call? > > We need to print out the number of successful/failure tests so, we need the > test to proceed even if an assert fails. > In case of `event_octeontx` we have added a new devargs 'selftest' that can be > used to test the driver from any given application. > > > Seriously where do you plan to use it outside auto test framework? > > We are moving pmd specific tests to respective pmd folder to reduce > clutter in auto test area (event devices for now) [1]. So, we need to access > the asserts from driver location instead of using CFLAGS to directly include > test.h for all the drivers it would be better to have it in eal/common as > rte_test. > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-December/083740.html Cc: thomas@monjalon.net Any objection to this patch and/or taking this patch through next-eventdev tree?