From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
To: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
"Vargas, Hernan" <hernan.vargas@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
"Rix, Tom" <trix@redhat.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:01:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0533e1c2-dc70-f74d-37a5-55c2a641c5ec@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB44513DBCEB9503AE17746F09F8D99@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Nicolas,
On 2/9/23 17:59, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:11 AM
>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/8/23 21:38, Vargas, Hernan wrote:
>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>
>>> We would like to keep the same signature for validate_dec_op because there
>> are functions such as latency_test_dec that have vector_mask on their
>> signatures and they pass it to validate_dec_op.
>>> Let me know if you'd like to discuss more.
>>
>> I think this is not a valid reason, just simplify latency_test_dec too.
>
> The principle is that all these functions may or may not use that generic operation masks, but we still use a stable (future proof) and consistent prototype for these
> test functions.
I would agree that it would be necessary if these were callbacks, but
that's not the case.
> I believe this is valid and better practice for the test functions, but again if you really want to push back, this could be changed.
I prefer we do not bloat the code with things that could be useful in an
hypothetical future.
Thanks,
Maxime
> Thanks!!
> Nic
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hernan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:36 AM
>>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/17/23 17:50, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>>> To make the test compatible with devices that do not support early
>>>> termination, the iteration count assert can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 6 +-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>>> index 81bf2c8b60..c68d79cf29 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>>> @@ -2290,6 +2290,7 @@ static int
>>>> validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n,
>>>> struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op, const int vector_mask)
>>>> {
>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(vector_mask);
>>>
>>> Why not just remove vector_mask if it isn't of any use instead of hiding the
>> warning?
>>>
>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>> int ret;
>>>> struct op_data_entries *hard_data_orig = @@ -2299,17 +2300,12
>> @@
>>>> validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n,
>>>> struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ops_td;
>>>> struct rte_bbdev_op_data *hard_output;
>>>> struct rte_bbdev_op_data *soft_output;
>>>> - struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ref_td = &ref_op->turbo_dec;
>>>>
>>>> for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
>>>> ops_td = &ops[i]->turbo_dec;
>>>> hard_output = &ops_td->hard_output;
>>>> soft_output = &ops_td->soft_output;
>>>>
>>>> - if (vector_mask & TEST_BBDEV_VF_EXPECTED_ITER_COUNT)
>>>> - TEST_ASSERT(ops_td->iter_count <= ref_td-
>>> iter_count,
>>>> - "Returned iter_count (%d) > expected
>> iter_count (%d)",
>>>> - ops_td->iter_count, ref_td-
>>> iter_count);
>>>> ret = check_dec_status_and_ordering(ops[i], i, ref_op-
>>> status);
>>>> TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret,
>>>> "Checking status and ordering for decoder
>> failed");
>>>
>>> Maxime
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-10 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-17 16:50 [PATCH v1 00/13] test/bbdev: changes for 23.03 Hernan Vargas
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 01/13] test/bbdev: fix seg fault for non supported HARQ len Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 9:20 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 02/13] test/bbdev: refactor TB throughput report Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 9:48 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 03/13] test/bbdev: add timeout for latency tests Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 10:02 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 04/13] test/bbdev: early termination not explicit set Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 10:04 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-10 17:15 ` Vargas, Hernan
2023-02-20 15:38 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 05/13] test/bbdev: report device status in bbdev-test Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 10:05 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 06/13] test/bbdev: log capture from queue stop Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 10:07 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 07/13] test/bbdev: add support for BLER for 4G Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 10:20 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-13 20:59 ` Vargas, Hernan
2023-02-20 15:43 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-22 21:55 ` Vargas, Hernan
2023-02-23 8:26 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 08/13] test/bbdev: extend support for large TB Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 11:29 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-13 20:20 ` Vargas, Hernan
2023-02-20 15:40 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 09/13] test/bbdev: bbdev-test cannot compare some scenarios Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 12:15 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-13 19:40 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 10/13] test/bbdev: adjustment for soft output Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 12:25 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 11/13] test/bbdev: expose warning counters Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 12:26 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 12/13] test/bbdev: remove check for invalid opaque data Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 12:33 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-01-17 16:50 ` [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check Hernan Vargas
2023-01-31 12:35 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-08 20:38 ` Vargas, Hernan
2023-02-09 9:10 ` Maxime Coquelin
2023-02-09 16:59 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2023-02-10 14:01 ` Maxime Coquelin [this message]
2023-02-10 18:11 ` Chautru, Nicolas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0533e1c2-dc70-f74d-37a5-55c2a641c5ec@redhat.com \
--to=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=hernan.vargas@intel.com \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).