From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C32E2965
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 22:24:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40312208D;
 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:24:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:24:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
 bh=UYvALAy/k1JL6WoFH+dudh6YRMQBuzy0mRC9dlp4Bl4=; b=LWlfRKV0sUzn
 utz4veJivvWmW9TYivXkhSYThx47sf23P2nYZyBgHsv4RIKjX6JCimL2yoy2LBmI
 Al5BladT3IwQUSGmdDAtSeYTA78gUArEVRWkX/UqNwqILbQEsKUdOTtn/AW2FtMl
 scq/Mii70pcG94ViFdK/e/T3QHQwEe4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=UYvALAy/k1JL6WoFH+dudh6YRMQBuzy0mRC9dlp4B
 l4=; b=Xv+vQphb6IL8GAr0EArS6A2LW0M3Og0GPB26AYeCJYfBCb1CpzhJwVMu6
 4py8XwuaLFNK7qcQqNfDPQm4g1T/G9trT2OmehDA+1TdLW2T5j4fhw/N5TfhB8F9
 utrQm9FMEnHeW80X+/9JoKw14hW+KfhhnP+R7v1Ig6yf4YdYEZBBl+WKx2rySAdc
 MH3OEobzOMggPRoZd2CLzPh7Sle6dgidlY8oi18SXNEjJuRu6puXUq+4BYdfO/Uc
 kVhq5ZF3Dwx/hnIzw8drz6Ej60M3cfAsHDmcVDsy4/Cr6nH1/DTQnqKtSObniGox
 fhWCw33BsAW1diqG9NjeO8G+m0ehQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:CXjTW99UdHK8mzV3Z_0z4X0wlhPXlkugVgNOCGIniM5irx8pjpyzBw>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:CXjTW89dCOyxnGeBJuvu3ilvaTFUk7kxoGDgv_za4AiNP7AVLMdtYw>
 <xmx:CXjTW5nCfX0cSex7YuAqUKQVVkedJBXwy1nZiImCb_lZeEOEVG7gNw>
 <xmx:CXjTW6mZubEo632Nzp4wJgOm7VWCUfmSvKhm-wr2xtnx2EtttwkOGQ>
 <xmx:CXjTW9uR432XTSPtfeyqZER5plXu1iSj3_xHao0RDBrQ9xzbFSYWjA>
 <xmx:CXjTW0LD53ftHAlAfH_zgBjbMhFPbXH4KhqZjP43y7Ei1KUNdUTiTA>
 <xmx:CXjTW7khpBiNMvg8wtLUr62av3Zy0gHAuoZk2RTrGNcQvA-CBD7Ziw>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 907B8E4408;
 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, yipeng1.wang@intel.com
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 22:24:45 +0200
Message-ID: <3800213.8SZGDA9kEc@xps>
In-Reply-To: <1537298539-31403-1-git-send-email-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
References: <1535379969-19642-1-git-send-email-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
 <1537298539-31403-1-git-send-email-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] test/hash: solve unit test
	hash compilation error
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 20:24:42 -0000

+Cc Yipeng

18/09/2018 21:22, Dharmik Thakkar:
> Enable print_key_info() function compilation always.

Please see my first comment: you need to show the compilation error
in this message. Otherwise, we don't know what you are trying
to fix.

> Fixes: af75078fece36 ("first public release")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Fix checkpatch coding style issue
> * Add "Fixes:" tag
> ---
>  test/test/test_hash.c | 24 +++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/test/test/test_hash.c b/test/test/test_hash.c
> index b3db9fd10547..db6442a2b101 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_hash.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_hash.c
> +#define UNIT_TEST_HASH_VERBOSE	0
>  /*
>   * Print out result of unit test hash operation.
>   */
> -#if defined(UNIT_TEST_HASH_VERBOSE)
>  static void print_key_info(const char *msg, const struct flow_key *key,
>  								int32_t pos)
>  {
> -	uint8_t *p = (uint8_t *)key;
> -	unsigned i;
> -
> -	printf("%s key:0x", msg);
> -	for (i = 0; i < sizeof(struct flow_key); i++) {
> -		printf("%02X", p[i]);
> +	if (UNIT_TEST_HASH_VERBOSE) {

This is very suspicious.
Why keeping this code if it is never called?

> +		const uint8_t *p = (const uint8_t *)key;
> +		unsigned int i;
> +
> +		printf("%s key:0x", msg);
> +		for (i = 0; i < sizeof(struct flow_key); i++)
> +			printf("%02X", p[i]);
> +		printf(" @ pos %d\n", pos);
>  	}
> -	printf(" @ pos %d\n", pos);
> -}
> -#else
> -static void print_key_info(__attribute__((unused)) const char *msg,
> -		__attribute__((unused)) const struct flow_key *key,
> -		__attribute__((unused)) int32_t pos)
> -{
>  }
> -#endif