[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update maintainer for reorder library

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update maintainer for reorder library

[Reshma Pattan]

Updated maintainers list for reorder library

Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 080a8e8..bdc0981 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ F: examples/distributor/
 F: doc/guides/sample_app_ug/dist_app.rst
 
 Reorder
-M: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
+M: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
 F: lib/librte_reorder/
 F: doc/guides/prog_guide/reorder_lib.rst
 F: app/test/test_reorder*
-- 
1.7.4.1

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: fix reorder library unit test

[Reshma Pattan]

The reorder library unit test was performed under the assumption that the start
sequence number was always 0.
This is not the case anymore as the start sequence number is initialized by the first
packet inserted into the reorder buffer.

This patch updates the unit test to reflect the new behavior.

Fixes: 7e1fa1de8a53 ("reorder: allow random number as starting point")

Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan<reshma.pattan@intel.com>

---
Version 2:
split patch for unit test only
update commit message

 app/test/test_reorder.c |   75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_reorder.c b/app/test/test_reorder.c
index 5752d7e..67f3151 100644
--- a/app/test/test_reorder.c
+++ b/app/test/test_reorder.c
@@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ test_reorder_create(void)
 			"No error on create() with invalid buffer size param.");
 
 	b = rte_reorder_create("PKT_RO1", rte_socket_id(), REORDER_BUFFER_SIZE);
-	printf("DEBUG: b= %p, orig_b= %p\n", b, test_params->b);
 	TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(b, test_params->b,
 			"New reorder instance created with already existing name");
 
@@ -165,7 +164,7 @@ test_reorder_insert(void)
 	struct rte_reorder_buffer *b = NULL;
 	struct rte_mempool *p = test_params->p;
 	const unsigned int size = 4;
-	const unsigned int num_bufs = 6;
+	const unsigned int num_bufs = 7;
 	struct rte_mbuf *bufs[num_bufs];
 	int ret = 0;
 	unsigned i;
@@ -181,16 +180,6 @@ test_reorder_insert(void)
 	ret = rte_mempool_get_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, num_bufs);
 	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret, "Error getting mbuf from pool");
 
-	/* late packet */
-	bufs[0]->seqn = 3 * size;
-	ret = rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[0]);
-	if (!((ret == -1) && (rte_errno == ERANGE))) {
-		printf("%s:%d: No error inserting late packet with seqn:"
-				" 3 * size\n", __func__, __LINE__);
-		ret = -1;
-		goto exit;
-	}
-
 	for (i = 0; i < num_bufs; i++)
 		bufs[i]->seqn = i;
 
@@ -232,6 +221,16 @@ test_reorder_insert(void)
 		goto exit;
 	}
 
+	/* late packet */
+	bufs[6]->seqn = 3 * size;
+	ret = rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[6]);
+	if (!((ret == -1) && (rte_errno == ERANGE))) {
+		printf("%s:%d: No error inserting late packet with seqn:"
+				" 3 * size\n", __func__, __LINE__);
+		ret = -1;
+		goto exit;
+	}
+
 	ret = 0;
 exit:
 	rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, num_bufs);
@@ -245,8 +244,9 @@ test_reorder_drain(void)
 	struct rte_reorder_buffer *b = NULL;
 	struct rte_mempool *p = test_params->p;
 	const unsigned int size = 4;
-	const unsigned int num_bufs = 10;
+	const unsigned int num_bufs = 8;
 	struct rte_mbuf *bufs[num_bufs];
+	struct rte_mbuf *robufs[num_bufs];
 	int ret = 0;
 	unsigned i, cnt;
 
@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ test_reorder_drain(void)
 	 * ready_buf: RB[size] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
 	 * order_buf: OB[size] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
 	 */
-	b = rte_reorder_create("test_insert", rte_socket_id(), size);
+	b = rte_reorder_create("test_drain", rte_socket_id(), size);
 	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(b, "Failed to create reorder buffer");
 
 	ret = rte_mempool_get_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, num_bufs);
 	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret, "Error getting mbuf from pool");
 
 	/* Check no drained packets if reorder is empty */
-	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, bufs, 1);
+	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, robufs, 1);
 	if (cnt != 0) {
 		printf("%s:%d: drained packets from empty reorder buffer\n",
 				__func__, __LINE__);
@@ -276,29 +276,40 @@ test_reorder_drain(void)
 	/* Insert packet with seqn 1:
 	 * reorder_seq = 0
 	 * RB[] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
-	 * OB[] = {NULL, 1, NULL, NULL}
+	 * OB[] = {1, NULL, NULL, NULL}
 	 */
 	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[1]);
 
-	/* Check no drained packets if no ready/order packets */
-	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, bufs, 1);
-	if (cnt != 0) {
-		printf("%s:%d: drained packets from empty reorder buffer\n",
-				__func__, __LINE__);
+	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, robufs, 1);
+	if (cnt != 1) {
+		printf("%s:%d:%d: number of expected packets not drained\n",
+				__func__, __LINE__, cnt);
 		ret = -1;
 		goto exit;
 	}
 
 	/* Insert more packets
 	 * RB[] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
-	 * OB[] = {0, 1, NULL, 3}
+	 * OB[] = {NULL, 2, 3, NULL}
 	 */
-	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[0]);
+	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[2]);
 	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[3]);
 
+	/* Insert more packets
+	 * RB[] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
+	 * OB[] = {NULL, 2, 3, 4}
+	 */
+	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[4]);
+
+	/* Insert more packets
+	 * RB[] = {2, 3, 4, NULL}
+	 * OB[] = {NULL, NULL, 7, NULL}
+	 */
+	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[7]);
+
 	/* drained expected packets */
-	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, bufs, 4);
-	if (cnt != 2) {
+	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, robufs, 4);
+	if (cnt != 3) {
 		printf("%s:%d:%d: number of expected packets not drained\n",
 				__func__, __LINE__, cnt);
 		ret = -1;
@@ -307,25 +318,15 @@ test_reorder_drain(void)
 
 	/*
 	 * RB[] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}
-	 * OB[] = {NULL, 3, NULL, NULL}
-	 */
-
-	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[4]);
-	rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[7]);
-
-	/*
-	 * RB[] = {3, 4, NULL, NULL}
 	 * OB[] = {NULL, NULL, 7, NULL}
 	 */
-
-	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, bufs, 4);
-	if (cnt != 2) {
+	cnt = rte_reorder_drain(b, robufs, 1);
+	if (cnt != 0) {
 		printf("%s:%d:%d: number of expected packets not drained\n",
 				__func__, __LINE__, cnt);
 		ret = -1;
 		goto exit;
 	}
-
 	ret = 0;
 exit:
 	rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, num_bufs);
-- 
1.7.4.1

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: fix reorder library unit test

[Sergio Gonzalez Monroy]

On 21/10/2015 11:50, Reshma Pattan wrote:
> The reorder library unit test was performed under the assumption that the start
> sequence number was always 0.
> This is not the case anymore as the start sequence number is initialized by the first
> packet inserted into the reorder buffer.
>
> This patch updates the unit test to reflect the new behavior.
>
> Fixes: 7e1fa1de8a53 ("reorder: allow random number as starting point")
>
> Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan<reshma.pattan@intel.com>
>
> ---
> Version 2:
> split patch for unit test only
> update commit message
>
>   app/test/test_reorder.c |   75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>   1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
>
Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update maintainer for reorder library

[Sergio Gonzalez Monroy]

On 21/10/2015 11:50, Reshma Pattan wrote:
> Updated maintainers list for reorder library
>
> Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
> ---
>   MAINTAINERS |    2 +-
>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 080a8e8..bdc0981 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ F: examples/distributor/
>   F: doc/guides/sample_app_ug/dist_app.rst
>   
>   Reorder
> -M: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> +M: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
>   F: lib/librte_reorder/
>   F: doc/guides/prog_guide/reorder_lib.rst
>   F: app/test/test_reorder*
Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: fix reorder library unit test

[Sergio Gonzalez Monroy]

On 21/10/2015 14:01, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> On 21/10/2015 11:50, Reshma Pattan wrote:
>> The reorder library unit test was performed under the assumption that 
>> the start
>> sequence number was always 0.
>> This is not the case anymore as the start sequence number is 
>> initialized by the first
>> packet inserted into the reorder buffer.
>>
>> This patch updates the unit test to reflect the new behavior.
>>
>> Fixes: 7e1fa1de8a53 ("reorder: allow random number as starting point")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan<reshma.pattan@intel.com>
>>
>> ---
>> Version 2:
>> split patch for unit test only
>> update commit message
>>
>>   app/test/test_reorder.c |   75 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>   1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
>>
> Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Forgot to add this tag:

Reported-by: Mukesh Dua <mukesh.dua81@gmail.com>

Sergio

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: fix reorder library unit test

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-10-30 14:30, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> On 21/10/2015 14:01, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> > On 21/10/2015 11:50, Reshma Pattan wrote:
> >> The reorder library unit test was performed under the assumption that 
> >> the start
> >> sequence number was always 0.
> >> This is not the case anymore as the start sequence number is 
> >> initialized by the first
> >> packet inserted into the reorder buffer.
> >>
> >> This patch updates the unit test to reflect the new behavior.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 7e1fa1de8a53 ("reorder: allow random number as starting point")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan<reshma.pattan@intel.com>
> >>
> > Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> Forgot to add this tag:
> 
> Reported-by: Mukesh Dua <mukesh.dua81@gmail.com>

Applied, thanks

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update maintainer for reorder library

[Thomas Monjalon]

> >   Reorder
> > -M: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> > +M: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
> >   F: lib/librte_reorder/
> >   F: doc/guides/prog_guide/reorder_lib.rst
> >   F: app/test/test_reorder*
> Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>

So you are replacing Sergio.
Any enhancement or feature planned?