From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBD1A04E6; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36A4CA98; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C024CCA67 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:32 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1604156251; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WpNXMAhWWJTwSgQMLkUCWPaks+tbmHeu/oCJf4T4NcU=; b=bhSXni+EB9EANRJA+/c8nsaOoIjd34FxIFQ+AxvM68cCfkoNvhk9PUIWrCno3v/o0GYR4Q kkfRKM3RB0VjRkRu5NVv94p2FMVA1U6l4NZevGqN2ajxorC0NULGWs9L8VGQDSuec1Cyjv H6P6hvBEgELegPN5zOdNX10ntzVrAKo= Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-7-U63c8KaLM9W5Nne9uGdJDA-1; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 10:57:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: U63c8KaLM9W5Nne9uGdJDA-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 34so1080447uax.17 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WpNXMAhWWJTwSgQMLkUCWPaks+tbmHeu/oCJf4T4NcU=; b=f0vXa3Hj44/K6TZ5KQcc5GxEkA0EEYkdBxYkPiDgFMSHbZSSVg6lKp3Sh6JBzP38wL /TNr8p+6Yt8rUDNLvR4MNxwXdMxQIfxVifuyAnu2iDZPcRO1FK6rUpza4wOxe/S9mobV bNxohmvshkzniJr3ARqzEKZvFS1c+OzrYbpmuf4kKQni6jq/Qozp13IeogYr7AgJO9Bc 9rwzRnuDp1U5pExZ8qgTkSbLA/pxcclLawLZvirmRgbuXUDwWhuqR9eIvjmbDmn+Wvgz 1W6D+BgrkjqdOG35ahj+LV7hOi0FtApjBz4V+ShDbbhWV/bsF9A7EUOZtfby9LPQXkNh 1sCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vDVKKgddLPD7ZvlxBcdUk+1YcrZSqdnDu/CEkcfjBQbf+4fB7 5VKZWgL+tWv0lUHduV9Wjh839Qyq/av0tMWEwp4IGB6dsf5sdF8kIDsH/FAMhF/SSe8EUjbBbOt IlXr4inPm9jx8ZFT113c= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f54b:: with SMTP id z11mr1089473vsn.17.1604156248912; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwG0u8kix9aGPvnR8HsxXC3yfLV8DXFeVcgpXXb/pa6VApgLjDKLjcPQKggjeiklGet5j37XdH8z+aYA67Gq98= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f54b:: with SMTP id z11mr1089466vsn.17.1604156248709; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201031143658.1182715-1-thomas@monjalon.net> In-Reply-To: <20201031143658.1182715-1-thomas@monjalon.net> From: David Marchand Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:17 +0100 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev , Olivier Matz , Andrew Rybchenko , dpdk stable , Konstantin Ananyev Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/mbuf: skip field registration at busy offset X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > There is a test for dynamic field registration at a specific offset. > Depending on which driver is probed, some dynamic fields may be > already registered at this offset. > This failure is skipped with a warning. > > Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Reported-by: David Marchand > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > --- > app/test/test_mbuf.c | 10 +++++++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test/test_mbuf.c b/app/test/test_mbuf.c > index 80d1850da9..3a13cf4e1f 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_mbuf.c > +++ b/app/test/test_mbuf.c > @@ -2608,9 +2608,13 @@ test_mbuf_dyn(struct rte_mempool *pktmbuf_pool) > > offset3 = rte_mbuf_dynfield_register_offset(&dynfield3, > offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, dynfield1[1])); > - if (offset3 != offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, dynfield1[1])) > - GOTO_FAIL("failed to register dynamic field 3, offset=%d: %s", > - offset3, strerror(errno)); > + if (offset3 != offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, dynfield1[1])) { > + if (rte_errno == EBUSY) > + printf("mbuf test error skipped: dynfield is busy\n"); > + else > + GOTO_FAIL("failed to register dynamic field 3, offset=" > + "%d: %s", offset3, strerror(errno)); > + } > > printf("dynfield: offset=%d, offset2=%d, offset3=%d\n", > offset, offset2, offset3); > -- > 2.28.0 > Reviewed-by: David Marchand -- David Marchand