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 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 ; 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" , "Vargas, Hernan" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "gakhil@marvell.com" , "Rix, Tom" Cc: "Zhang, Qi Z" References: <20230117165023.20567-1-hernan.vargas@intel.com> <20230117165023.20567-14-hernan.vargas@intel.com> <2587fa70-201f-c90f-ae16-2c31cb672cbe@redhat.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 >> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:11 AM >> To: Vargas, Hernan ; dev@dpdk.org; >> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom >> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas ; Zhang, Qi Z >> >> 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 >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:36 AM >>> To: Vargas, Hernan ; dev@dpdk.org; >>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom >>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas ; Zhang, Qi Z >>> >>> 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 >>>> --- >>>> 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 >>> >