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 03075A04E7 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E22CAB6; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:57:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94AACA67 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-vs1-f72.google.com (mail-vs1-f72.google.com [209.85.217.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-596-3Om0GTLVOYWZuJa1pJwRLg-1; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 10:57:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3Om0GTLVOYWZuJa1pJwRLg-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f72.google.com with SMTP id d6so1576160vsh.8 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=p2TGysh0EExIX2YOOyHEHoGvrr2TLXzIPkL5B2YiX83EJiFbeJvTV72N3Pq3W5iHwy byV+YJoQysYOlWQ5nhb+96mYQdUX48+DpNyUnwCDMm3OP8LDbDS17c82Evb+Hnojoj1p kMNW8YguftVH5/rrTghX+tvZoyvZYSSJaj/MJXQOdJM+S0NzvqPxfEirUw0YadBUKkJ9 A1S/RHSBQQ69LJLknYoGd5AFvidX5/dUtoFfutWYdvBptFqlPhY2EEwiHZvfRcXhzFDB J7HKj0OcpwKoig2Mb8+P++H4S2lBv2YXNgno1EUhb0NhfRspFyKyS/SbYgdLh3IMOWh2 kWpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331HgNzFygYif8mI5MeplFLaC9+caSzGhDvxIHWQZ7BTZllv+a/ 7aYFRVKUrsNMq43bHuH3SRp1lB7spxRTFXdqlnUaaI0Tr66ET6fslE2swDrpurWg8TDhK4oNwNu BvGtebQtdu8dhcLZUoX1OdEc= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f54b:: with SMTP id z11mr1089475vsn.17.1604156248913; 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-stable] [PATCH] test/mbuf: skip field registration at busy offset X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 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