From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D17A0C4B; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:14:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B4B40687; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:14:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AE540151 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:14:42 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1636445682; 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=24+PZt5lVYoim7XBqMENfBCJKuuv4npWVLrPhaQQBHQ=; b=AeZR/y5pPi3PIB9Nms+FESCKVCLj5IcNfaXLgYehKl13esBYRsmrsAl8SeHaBixwqPNlPf l80u2REfZLoM2pTAchRY0qmCgliDy8czomuIGwIb0oCgK9Rl0QO/5034SAzY8enAdlwDc8 cH3My5GTYadsBKDgybDNqZnE1wwfDf0= Received: from mail-lj1-f199.google.com (mail-lj1-f199.google.com [209.85.208.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-537-hp6UiJ4vMsmQ2OgS5NCAvQ-1; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 03:14:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: hp6UiJ4vMsmQ2OgS5NCAvQ-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f199.google.com with SMTP id r13-20020a2e970d000000b00211a01c5f3fso5923454lji.7 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:14:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=24+PZt5lVYoim7XBqMENfBCJKuuv4npWVLrPhaQQBHQ=; b=2n/lGJUDT159y+2Sem0SQlCKE0WhPwAnCbvioKfC2Uuga44g69sPFqM+TkxoYjBdms sldB1i3ZUxwjW9+6q3lMrbQnRUAgKeEA6I2n4YfBi/6M3EnLYX3k8rk9Nca7WkpmlZoS j5Dy3UecDQ4NygxFjz8gsBV3O1sOUBBl0XtQKBWBMJcVtLKKBoQQrmNXkchkCVa3G7Z/ LFIUwcF9G9PZ66UcxTD1pW6Zr27Vq5e+12JCW94/pKuG6EWKpXFx4oziB69CfX3jI+hW rcMd9uyX3N/bmQfh6S7hE0aq9cC1k6U2SMv54X9A7M2/3tzTI2EZgVnKjCi82Eb6lHTY Og6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532x4Z7JWJLYDxUQgAQGQalUfOFrg+dZcFkRNuYHuh9DktL447pP wh5wDbAbuwGjo5VQUpsIIhihl/J1Vpo4cLOgbJBcjAygCbCMyaqwOuChgmXwHJbl2FlFNaLMpMb hlzbnxkIQApjraEIXmSY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3f28:: with SMTP id y40mr5198528lfa.499.1636445676769; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:14:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqXcl/RZZqoX7C8rRA6xKSu+GDFOrOZSRRLXtSWY3rXrixPR7FBqEY4io5pUiYzC8lkvPjy4XiaVq3A1/NnSw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3f28:: with SMTP id y40mr5198513lfa.499.1636445676560; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:14:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1635148739-61415-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com> <79a325b9.dfd.17d0280731a.Coremail.chcchc88@163.com> In-Reply-To: <79a325b9.dfd.17d0280731a.Coremail.chcchc88@163.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:14:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: Huichao Cai , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: dev , Thomas Monjalon 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/ipfrag: add test content to the test unit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" Hello, On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:22 AM Huichao Cai wrote: > >6-0: checking 6688 with 3360 > > This test case failed because there was a bug in the "rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c" file. > It is this test case that discovers this bug. A patch to fix the bug has been received. Why was it separate from the fix? I could not tell from this current patch that there was a dependency. It could (should?) have been a single patch. > The fix bug patche is: > ip_frag: fix the buf of fragmenting IPv4 fragment - Patchwork (dpdk.org) A link to patchwork would avoid me wasting time looking for it. I guess this is the patch Thomas merged last night. On the patch itself, the title is vague. It should summarize what the change adds to the unit tests. test/ipfrag: check fragment offsets Thanks. -- David Marchand