Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: enhance power manager unit tests

["Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,

I sent it few mins back. Can you check  and apply

Thanks,
Reshma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:34 PM
> To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hunt, David <david.hunt@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Parthasarathy, JananeeX M
> <jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: enhance power manager unit
> tests
> 
> 24/04/2018 14:51, Pattan, Reshma:
> > From: Hunt, David
> > > On 24/4/2018 12:23 PM, Pattan, Reshma wrote:
> > > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:04:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > >>> 11/04/2018 16:14, Reshma Pattan:
> > > >>>> Unit Testcases are added for power_acpi_cpu_freq,
> > > power_kvm_vm_test
> > > >>>> to improve coverage
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jananee Parthasarathy
> > > >>>> <jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>
> > > >>>> Acked-by: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
> > > >>> Applied, thanks
> > > >>>
> > > >> Sadly, this patch seems to break shared library builds. If you
> > > >> try doing "make test-build" with shared libraries on it will
> > > >> fail, or if you do a meson build using shared libraries you will get the
> same result.
> > > >>
> > > >> The root cause is that the function guest_channel_host_connect()
> > > >> is a private function and so is not listed in the shared library
> > > >> map file, preventing the test app from linking.
> > > >>
> > > > Any action from my side required? Let me know.
> > >
> > > Reshma,
> > >      Looking at this, I think this particular unit test needs to be
> > > removed. The way it is at the moment, it's "faking" the connect,
> > > then any commands that are sent to the dummy host are only really to
> > > test to see if the API breaks, which is going to be captured by
> > > compilation tests anyway. I don't see the value of this unit test
> > > unless you have the full host setup underneath is, in which case it's no
> longer a unit test.
> > > Also, we don't want to make these functions public, as they are only
> > > of use to the library internally, and there is no use for them
> > > publicly (unless a guest wants to fake a connection to a non-existent host).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Fine, we are reverting the changes and will send the patch soon.
> 
> Where is the patch?
> I will revert it myself.
>