From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5497EEF
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2015 05:05:27 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,714,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="752161384"
Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.88])
 ([10.237.220.88])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2015 05:05:26 -0700
Message-ID: <55D5C285.7060306@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:05:25 +0100
From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mukesh Dua <mukesh.dua81@gmail.com>
References: <CAF0OvsZ0n-yTvx_-YF79ugyz4kmsOm9cLopuHY6PHpKRne=xEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF0OvsZ0n-yTvx_-YF79ugyz4kmsOm9cLopuHY6PHpKRne=xEg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Issue observed with execution of Reorder test app
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:05:28 -0000

On 20/08/2015 12:38, Mukesh Dua wrote:
> I see issue with reorder test app failing on x86 environment due to changes
> made between release 2.0.0 and 2.1.0:
>
> App reorder_test (app/test/test_reorder.c)
> ============
> Function failing: test_reorder_insert
>
> There had been some changes with respect to addition of parameter
> is_initialized to the structure rte_reorder_buffer. In parallel the changes
> were made to initialize some of the parameters in function
> rte_reorder_insert
>
> rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> {
>      uint32_t offset, position;
>      struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
>
> *    if (!b->is_initialized) {*
> *        b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn;*
>          *b->is_initialized = 1;*
> *    }*
>
> => I don't see any reason to set b->min_seqn to mbuf->seqn and if that has
> to be done, the conditional checks should have been modified in function
> test_reorder_insert soon after a call to rte_reorder_insert. Additionally,
> the next seqn number being populated should have been changed in function
> test_reorder_insert:
>
>      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;
>
> On the other hand, changing the code in function rte_reorder_insert:
> rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> {
>      uint32_t offset, position;
>      struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
>
>      if (!b->is_initialized) {
> *        b->min_seqn = 0;  //Removed initialization from mbuf->seqn*
>          b->is_initialized = 1;
>      }
> fixes the issues and the test case passes.
>
> Regards,
> Mukesh
Hi Mukesh,

The reason for that change is explained in its commit message and also 
in this thread:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017930.html

Hope this info helps to clarify your concern.

Sergio