RE: [PATCH] test: fix option block

["Stokes, Ian" <ian.stokes@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 2:39 AM
> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] test: fix option block
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 8:02 PM
> > To: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] test: fix option block
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:35 PM
> > > > To: Ye, MingjinX <mingjinx.ye@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] test: fix option block
> > > >
> > > > > > The options allow (-a) and block (-b) cannot be used at the same time.
> > > > > > Therefore, allow (-a) will not be added when block (-b) is present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: b3ce7891ad38 ("test: fix probing in secondary process")
> > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mingjin Ye <mingjinx.ye@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mingjin, in general the patch looks ok to me.
> > > >
> > > > A general question of the behaviour of block and allow, is it always
> > > > the case that the two are not allowed to be used side by side?
> > > Both cannot be used at the same time.
> > >
> > > > I had a look through the EAL documentation and didn't see and
> > > > mention of this behaviour, but maybe I missed it?
> > > The "eal_common_usage" function has a clear description, see below:
> > > lib/eal/common/eal_common_options.c:2206
> >
> > I understand that, but that is a comment in code, I think the behaviour is
> > worthy of being called out in documentation API too for usability factors.
> Sorry for not providing complete information. There is processing logic in
> "eal_parse_common_option".
> Unsatisfied condition outputs "Options allow (-a) and block (-b) can't be used
> at the same time".
> 

Ah Ok, thanks for the clarification. I see this has been tested as well previously by Jiale Song. In that case this looks good to me.

Acked-by: Ian Stokes <ian.stokes@intel.com>

> >
> > Thanks
> > Ian
> >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > ian
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  app/test/process.h | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/app/test/process.h b/app/test/process.h index
> > > > > > 9fb2bf481c..388c7975cd 100644
> > > > > > --- a/app/test/process.h
> > > > > > +++ b/app/test/process.h
> > > > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ add_parameter_allow(char **argv, int
> > > max_capacity)
> > > > > >  	int count = 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  	RTE_EAL_DEVARGS_FOREACH(NULL, devargs) {
> > > > > > -		if (strlen(devargs->name) == 0)
> > > > > > +		if (strlen(devargs->name) == 0 || devargs->type !=
> > > > > > +RTE_DEVTYPE_ALLOWED)
> > > > > >  			continue;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  		if (devargs->data == NULL || strlen(devargs->data)
> > == 0)
> > > > { @@
> > > > > > -74,7 +74,7 @@ process_dup(const char *const argv[], int
> > > > > > numargs, const char *env_value)  {
> > > > > >  	int num = 0;
> > > > > >  	char **argv_cpy;
> > > > > > -	int allow_num;
> > > > > > +	int allow_num, block_num;
> > > > > >  	int argv_num;
> > > > > >  	int i, status;
> > > > > >  	char path[32];
> > > > > > @@ -89,7 +89,18 @@ process_dup(const char *const argv[], int
> > > > > > numargs, const char *env_value)
> > > > > >  	if (pid < 0)
> > > > > >  		return -1;
> > > > > >  	else if (pid == 0) {
> > > > > > -		allow_num =
> > > > > > rte_devargs_type_count(RTE_DEVTYPE_ALLOWED);
> > > > > > +		allow_num = 0;
> > > > > > +		block_num = 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +		/* If block (-b) is present, allow (-a) is not added. */
> > > > > > +		for (i = 0; i < numargs; i++) {
> > > > > > +			if (strcmp(argv[i], "-b") == 0 ||
> > > > > > +			    strcmp(argv[i], "-block") == 0)
> > > > > > +				block_num++;
> > > > > > +		}
> > > > > > +		if (!block_num)
> > > > > > +			allow_num =
> > > > > > rte_devargs_type_count(RTE_DEVTYPE_ALLOWED);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  		argv_num = numargs + allow_num + 1;
> > > > > >  		argv_cpy = calloc(argv_num, sizeof(char *));
> > > > > >  		if (!argv_cpy)
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.25.1