From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] add unit tests for bitrate, latency and pdump libraries Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 17:01:58 +0200 Message-ID: <3491608.SlR326vUU5@xps> References: <1533075501-10135-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <3AEA2BF9852C6F48A459DA490692831F2A378E6C@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <7AE31235A30B41498D1C31348DC858BD5B4A3507@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Somarowthu, Naga SureshX" , "Burakov, Anatoly" To: "Parthasarathy, JananeeX M" , "Pattan, Reshma" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718891B5A8 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:02:06 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <7AE31235A30B41498D1C31348DC858BD5B4A3507@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 03/08/2018 16:16, Parthasarathy, JananeeX M: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > From: Pattan, Reshma > > > >Hi Thomas, > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >> 01/08/2018 00:18, Reshma Pattan: > >> > v10: fixed clang compiler issues and freed latency stats memzone in > >> > latency stats unit tests. > >> > v9: rebased ontop of latest autotest changes and added new tests to > >> > the autotest list > >> > v8: renamed commit headline and freed the metrics memzone for > >> > bitrate ut > >> > v7: removed unused macros and corrected the comment > >> > v6: updated ring variable appropriately > >> > v5: rebased, freed pools and rings, created common patch set > >> > --- > >> > >> Sorry, the integration of this patchset is very painful. > >> > >> After asking for rebase, for clang fix, there are still some basic > >> errors with 32- bit compilation: > >> > >> test_latencystats.c:131:21: error: > >> format =E2=80=98%ld=E2=80=99 expects argument of type =E2=80=98long i= nt=E2=80=99, > >> but argument 2 has type =E2=80=98uint64_t=E2=80=99 {aka =E2=80=98long= long unsigned int=E2=80=99} > >> > >> linkage: > >> > >> test@test@@dpdk-test@exe/test.c.o:(.data+0x18): undefined > >reference > >> to `test_pdump' > >> > >> or even MAINTAINERS file: > >> > >> test/test/sample_packet_forward.c > >> test/test/sample_packet_forward.h > >> test/test/test_bitratestats.c > >> test/test/test_latencystats.c > >> > >> I have already spent too much time on it, despite it is not fixing 18.= 08. > >> > >> Please do a complete detailed review of this series, so it can be > >> considered for 18.11. > >> > > > >We missed to do these basic checks, apologies for consuming your time. > > Naga Suresh has now proactively worked on fixing these issues and runni= ng > >pre checks on patches and addressed in v12. > >The earlier versions were reviewed by me, Remy and Anatoly . So we reque= st > >you to consider latest patches for 18.08, until unless they don=E2=80=99= t give any last > >minute surprises. > > > >Thanks, > >Reshma > > > > > > > Apologies very much to miss the earlier patch pre-checks. > We have gone through the cheatsheet and validated pre-checks in the patch= v12. > Compiled Successfully in Fedora 27, Fedora 26, CentOS 7.2, CentOS 7.4, Ub= untu for both 32bit/64bit and FreeBSD (64bit) > Build using compilers gcc, icc, clang were successful in Fedora. > Shared Library builds were successful in Fedora 27, CentOS 7.2 and Ubuntu >=20 > Executed checkpatch, check-git-log without any errors. > Code changes were acknowledged by reviewers. >=20 > Request to please consider the patch set v12 to be included in RC3 18.08. >=20 > In case of any info/change please let us know. Why are you insisting so much? I have already replied to Reshma that it is too late and not urgent: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109352.html Please do not make it even more difficult. I just do not want to spend more time on this series now. When I will take time, I will do a better review, and I can promise that I will have some comments. So please consider my earlier comment to avoid burning too much time: "Please do a complete detailed review of this series" After a quick look, I already see some suspicious includes, linkage, and last 2 patches should be integrated with others. To make it clear, the quality was not good and I already burnt too much tim= e. I won't spend more time on it during August.