From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935CC41C61;
Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:01:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3340040EE6;
Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:01:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com
(us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FFA40687
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:01:32 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
s=mimecast20190719; t=1676037691;
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:
content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
bh=m6NOitOOTr8nyzyx0pGJHJiiAlBIlRg142fkHgCKlqc=;
b=HmiL0rmten0/ZYTJ95cryIQwC7dViJSZ+0+RhPhmCOkdxaUfknAL+vH9IplhflmXnBjhT6
1D/6hQjLVIu1+DGaz5qNEWU84ZAgTrTUlBWzP4qPddPh5Jx6so6t5TBBr7qv8sFbwSfl0k
3qXgudMGQRofhxi9FO9GZ36PtDt5bKs=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
[66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
(version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
us-mta-438-iwkntUjwMxKIic1IucTyTw-1; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:01:21 -0500
X-MC-Unique: iwkntUjwMxKIic1IucTyTw-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com
[10.11.54.4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C56F0101A521;
Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.39.208.22] (unknown [10.39.208.22])
by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4852026D4B;
Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <0533e1c2-dc70-f74d-37a5-55c2a641c5ec@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:01:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
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>
References: <20230117165023.20567-1-hernan.vargas@intel.com>
<20230117165023.20567-14-hernan.vargas@intel.com>
<2587fa70-201f-c90f-ae16-2c31cb672cbe@redhat.com>
<DM6PR11MB3660CC5A0E81D4B61356F5A2EFD89@DM6PR11MB3660.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
<f9a2952b-4118-cc0c-7975-afe90aa6941e@redhat.com>
<BY5PR11MB44513DBCEB9503AE17746F09F8D99@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB44513DBCEB9503AE17746F09F8D99@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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
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
>>>
>