Re: [PATCH 0/1] make file prefix unit test more resilient

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:42 PM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> When examining the IOL testing failures for patch series [1], I observed
> that the failures reported were in the eal_flags_file_prefix unit test.
> I was able to reproduce this on my system by passing an additional
> "--on-pci" flag to the test run, since the log to the test has errors
> about device availability. Adding the "no-pci" flag to the individual

Something is not clear to me.

While I understand that passing "no-pci" helps avoiding the issue (as
described below), I have some trouble understanding this passage
(above) with "--on-pci".
How did you reproduce the issue?


> test commands used by the unit tests fixed the issue thereafter,
> allowing the test to pass in all cases for me. Therefore, I am
> submitting this patch in the hopes of making the test more robust, since
> the observed failures seem unrelated to the original patchset [1] I
> submitted.
>
> [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=29406
>
> Bruce Richardson (1):
>   app/test: skip PCI bus scan when testing prefix flags
>
>  app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Iiuc, the problem is that the file_prefix unit test can fail if any
DPDK subsystem forgets to release some memory and some hugepages are
left behind at the cleanup step.
Passing --no-pci as you suggest hides issues coming from PCI drivers.

This is something I tried to fix too, with
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=29288 though my
fix only handles a part of the issue (here, the ethdev drivers).

Another way to make the file prefix more robust would be to remove the
check on released memory, or move it to another test.


-- 
David Marchand