From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D391288 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:07:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2015 02:07:57 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,426,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="514218659" Received: from pgsmsx105.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.96]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2015 02:01:23 -0800 Received: from shsmsx152.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.52) by PGSMSX105.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:07:53 +0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.64]) by SHSMSX152.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.173]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:07:52 +0800 From: "Qiu, Michael" To: David Marchand Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fix rte_is_power_of_2 Thread-Index: AQHQIena5agmnQPVLkW1rokxyi5D6Q== Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286CB7564@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1419694115-1892-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <7022282.sJULtgJP1R@xps13> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286CB74C5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fix rte_is_power_of_2 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:07:59 -0000 On 2015/1/19 17:50, David Marchand wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Qiu, Michael > wrote: This could be, but I hope every contributor could do basic check like build and run of at lease one app like test-pmd, then it will reduce most of failure we faced. testpmd is fine, but make test should be preferred as it requires no setup = and it requires no pmd to be configured. Besides, testpmd is an application, it does not test libraries that it does= not use, while make test is supposed to test all libraries. I just use test-pmd for an example, the contributor should test his patches= before send out, especially, the test need to focus on what he try to fixe= d. It is a bad behavior to send out *without* tested. There is still the hugepages to configure when running make test so I would= say "make test" should tell you so. This will avoid wasting 10 minutes to understand why all your tests fail ..= . Yes, it could be useful. Can anyone help document this / make it more user friendly / easier ? -- David Marchand