From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD9956A1 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:08:39 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Dec 2017 09:08:37 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,392,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="17339768" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.106]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2017 09:08:35 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:08:35 +0000 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:08:34 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Konstantin Ananyev Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20171211170834.GA2232@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1512126771-27503-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1512126771-27503-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] test/test: introduce new test-case for rte_smp_mb() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:08:39 -0000 On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:12:50AM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > Simple functional test for rte_smp_mb() implementations. > Also when executed on a single lcore could be used as rough > estimation how many cycles particular implementation of rte_smp_mb() > might take. > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev > --- > test/test/Makefile | 1 + > test/test/test_mb.c | 278 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 279 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 test/test/test_mb.c > First pass comment on this patch is that it really could do with some comments explaining what is happening and why. Although it's meant to be a "simple functional test", it doesn't appear to be so on first reading, without comments as to how the test is meant to work and what the expected output values are. /Bruce