From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E1141B8E; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:36:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3584410E6; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:36:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7328B40DFB for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:36:03 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1675168563; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MsfR/74suzNDodcyCHZYsE1AaNHBfLwNx9YXtbEth1I=; b=BBLr2O1hU5WcX2QoS8mAZd7BAimE3hEmprmMkH4QKIDbnfWVjj5dRoJD57+hAKh9/Fn79X 5lgqb8MxuXEOxoye+Z7sZrjug5lf+QMRJfcyed8vRKvXMbxv5eANNWv4Ux1EgSUW4E4iI7 nE94bWTW53M6IcXx7m3Syrf2D65voag= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-316-lRBP9tzyPbyRXscqe77tMg-1; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:35:59 -0500 X-MC-Unique: lRBP9tzyPbyRXscqe77tMg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CFF886064; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.22] (unknown [10.39.208.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 549382166B33; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <2587fa70-201f-c90f-ae16-2c31cb672cbe@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:35:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check To: Hernan Vargas , dev@dpdk.org, gakhil@marvell.com, trix@redhat.com Cc: nicolas.chautru@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com References: <20230117165023.20567-1-hernan.vargas@intel.com> <20230117165023.20567-14-hernan.vargas@intel.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: <20230117165023.20567-14-hernan.vargas@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 1/17/23 17:50, Hernan Vargas wrote: > To make the test compatible with devices that do not support early > termination, the iteration count assert can be removed. > > Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas > --- > app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > index 81bf2c8b60..c68d79cf29 100644 > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > @@ -2290,6 +2290,7 @@ static int > validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n, > struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op, const int vector_mask) > { > + RTE_SET_USED(vector_mask); Why not just remove vector_mask if it isn't of any use instead of hiding the warning? > unsigned int i; > int ret; > struct op_data_entries *hard_data_orig = > @@ -2299,17 +2300,12 @@ validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n, > struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ops_td; > struct rte_bbdev_op_data *hard_output; > struct rte_bbdev_op_data *soft_output; > - struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ref_td = &ref_op->turbo_dec; > > for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) { > ops_td = &ops[i]->turbo_dec; > hard_output = &ops_td->hard_output; > soft_output = &ops_td->soft_output; > > - if (vector_mask & TEST_BBDEV_VF_EXPECTED_ITER_COUNT) > - TEST_ASSERT(ops_td->iter_count <= ref_td->iter_count, > - "Returned iter_count (%d) > expected iter_count (%d)", > - ops_td->iter_count, ref_td->iter_count); > ret = check_dec_status_and_ordering(ops[i], i, ref_op->status); > TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret, > "Checking status and ordering for decoder failed"); Maxime