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 B235045911; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:11:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AA4402B5; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:11:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f175.google.com (mail-lj1-f175.google.com [209.85.208.175]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC97C4025C for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:11:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f175.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f3f2b86b2dso1227571fa.3 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1725563512; x=1726168312; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=1Iq6aAsuZxnXTHxY8wKxjwBvar6opoYU3Mj73s44hsA=; b=C76Ms3WV0kbjHKv1JgV+iG9Bho/iz7rr3zTPc2eUwcOZAv6fsUtp7nQufF4WVWH/hO H8abChMX5XsddSkcO4zF0i4wMZGxJcB3xPg/XV4+9rIrFk8XKYapSzxSkGajbV57OEbb VSqIkGPSEA3nr53gh9pWtUqTYXKwBtLNT6roA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725563512; x=1726168312; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1Iq6aAsuZxnXTHxY8wKxjwBvar6opoYU3Mj73s44hsA=; b=PzwzPZ5plcVj/tEzXZiJUaKCbmHu9Fmxuln2JSGYkIGV29TzBVGQrXINd0mRckGnve Qv1AJUOazYXrDCIS7Pko9r5a9zUUVTWbuRhjVc4YFJjpxNVHI0Mp6ZKnck6/wdvJS6OF nBrXnXZnlUdHQ0qQTnkJfXCj53lvjhSCQXVEkG2nxJlgiNmxY0P68Qc2UQmJ6JJjSlSG KR1Km+OB4Y7Yqr4S3VcdtEj6/zRW70d9KKa49IBm6FJqobXlADiXwF22eAHX0mNNStn6 rsL5hSLeYHv3BMUQ49a0vlspNGQEJhXFZvAjhP66UCCuIt4EPJ5S63PFiWYe4ECjpA0Q TSUw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVyAj1GSF5dp3W7AumsTLiyILbXg38LNmNVVumsUFkZLlIABEn63oPIAIegjPxGB767d7E=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzBsXJWqpSrlQxtTI3R1kZsbLo+b9c8AUjh69kZoPyssLn8Wzak 85N7zfvmNDzxZgkVho3JR+vNqZRiCikneBLiVzdHVSK02FtQfLJSkwZUXUqV4anKUl04NrXXfTk 8/xrOYRG5wG6V8mhCEcMz9N4AcldmhHIKBw6JCg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG15mQ2O4nuWdNBelOMAlq1dQxWAn+qTIWgqfsl7BUXdooYId+FnPwqnDXOHAq92O58UGB1M5T+T6U+DNTYgyw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:bea6:0:b0:2f3:aed8:aa9f with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f751ef7489mr493071fa.3.1725563511816; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:11:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240726163915.19277-2-npratte@iol.unh.edu> <20240726164602.25519-1-npratte@iol.unh.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Nicholas Pratte Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:11:40 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dts: mac filter test suite refactored for new dts To: Dean Marx Cc: probb@iol.unh.edu, jspewock@iol.unh.edu, luca.vizzarro@arm.com, yoan.picchi@foss.arm.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech, dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Stephen Hemminger , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , mkashani@nvidia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 I wanted to point out a unique issue I've been experiencing on the Mellanox/NVIDIA NICs (Connect x5). The mac address pool feature, which is assessed in the test_invalid_address, inserts 128 (in the case of Connect_X5) addresses and fails this test case. On the other hand, Broadcom P225p devices are capped at 127 addresses because it includes its default, vendor-provided mac address in the 128 mac address pool total. Basically Mellanox allows 129 addresses total because they do not include the device's default mac address total, and other devices do include this address in the total. This is a minor issue, but a consensus may need to be made since there is no assertion that I can find anywhere stating which implementation is correct. On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 5:13=E2=80=AFPM Dean Marx wrote: >> >> >> + if should_receive: >> + self.verify(len(received_packets) =3D=3D 1, "Expected packe= t not received") >> + else: >> + self.verify(len(received_packets) =3D=3D 0, "Expected packe= t received") > > > Side note, didn't notice until I tested it but "Expected packet received"= doesn't really make sense as an error message