From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5779A0096 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDC21BC89; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com (mail-vs1-f67.google.com [209.85.217.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837E91BC83 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:50:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id l20so13547876vsp.3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 06:50:59 -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=3dW7WqvAGnXfrSasBnnqCFQUyqiLT1PWL8kzTRwQ1Y8=; b=Pdeb14luu4KPaqDf8Wz/Go+eEByJE+8BjXbNDZlJMSsfrX9XSeN+RWpiUJ9ZYplMCk wvE0q9EcG5y6WnwtnwwSSYmEA5nGdVuzxXXAzSJ84qA9NU8THS1XDlNYnDaAYt4yzsV3 qQjOe14GVA/+q2dgg/O460kbox5JSJks4N9TS5Rfn8iQxnwaJVUR8ZT9u9um+5ZAOV9n 3Bs31KE1i0SNvNuSs4hlyAOIr3U/1o+lDtoa9hWi8cqvooKLps60mUC3z3ZGTjIZqcQH mjQ6wBaKxNW9cgc/DR6u242p9xrvIda1nKWkt+Ol3qeT6P9ecgKfuvQgcpZTLhtb4i4w 0d1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGLNQOQ2nuHsbb2Zv+AMydXN3TjvcXXK0GxNVWzM6hxpWMy3Tl e0BSqIDx1NWAKa/d+mDmwONgjLXa0nqFrNAWyzzfOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxvnmr/Bszb2DH7dYdBQTo2CKk12kkseG52Zn3jLOBiblutV4bU0SFjpt7MfvBOogFqsyLdgtdabUKq8MIYY9k= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e9ca:: with SMTP id q10mr4341360vso.105.1559656258869; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 06:50:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1559638792-8608-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <1559638792-8608-13-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <f7t7ea1cwby.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <f7t7ea1cwby.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:50:48 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJFAV8z0-Ba1NA0wQO3q3Viwyqdef_ijAYm_BTw4u-x4aiAKRw@mail.gmail.com> To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Michael Santana <msantana@redhat.com>, Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 12/14] test/eal: make the test pass again X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi David and Michael, > > David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> writes: > > > From: Michael Santana <msantana@redhat.com> > > > > The eal_flags_autotest test currently fails due to a memory leak in the > > timer library[1][2]. This failure occurs when the test calls one of its > > subtests test_file_prefix(). > > > > Fixing the memory leak is not trivial, so this patch is a workaround that > > makes the eal_flags_autotest test pass. This is accomplished by moving > the > > test_file_prefix test to its own test unit. This is a temporary measure > > until the leak is fixed. > > > > [1] http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/53268/ > > [2] http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/53334/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Santana <msantana@redhat.com> > > --- > > I'm wondering if it's better to just fix the leak outright. > > Then again, it might be useful to have the file-prefix test as an > enumerable test anyway. > We have a lot of tests that embed subtests that can be entirely skipped at the first subtest failure. Their execution time can also be quite long making it harder to adjust the timeout. So splitting the existing tests into their subtests is something I have been considering. -- David Marchand