From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mukesh.dua81@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com
 [209.85.213.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791D55A83
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:38:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by igui7 with SMTP id i7so28159164igu.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=YRVrW6VwQg0xKn6BuZubgq5OhmQbwhE7gQ+4WqBzH8k=;
 b=BcnZunf8a/VG6XP/9PhjAVOyD/JW9LkB5qzVHq4lXd9y3xiUzvXxILVi+C8LUOzpRC
 1lR6KAF4D8PVArYT/pGYjwIp3z66b64NGyQejIwdioc+UlKyd40bAO5gwPCVf1thIE7S
 3Y0+UQCVbtcUJlZ97vrRwfFnNbBCr/InVFRW7Lz8+0+uq/gmTDNiswi80b/t1NdSd26Y
 xpqO75uSgtzVHG5ZKi12pt2zHeEUz/iNElMnDRE5ihgRCLl9pBkcE5agpu7vJNWfHa/J
 eecp5PLwCigGoQTIbDNj6K7aLJcb/LfLkFrmKGcl6Wp0MBQpbYUK1HOgc9ojjABsmJx8
 wPcQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.136.134 with SMTP id qa6mr6851373igb.13.1440070736867;
 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.179.135 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:08:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CAF0OvsZ0n-yTvx_-YF79ugyz4kmsOm9cLopuHY6PHpKRne=xEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mukesh Dua <mukesh.dua81@gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [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 11:38:57 -0000

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