Re: [dpdk-dev] Issue observed with execution of Reorder test app

["Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>]

On 20/08/2015 12:38, Mukesh Dua wrote:
> I see issue with reorder test app failing on x86 environment due to changes
> made between release 2.0.0 and 2.1.0:
>
> App reorder_test (app/test/test_reorder.c)
> ============
> Function failing: test_reorder_insert
>
> There had been some changes with respect to addition of parameter
> is_initialized to the structure rte_reorder_buffer. In parallel the changes
> were made to initialize some of the parameters in function
> rte_reorder_insert
>
> rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> {
>      uint32_t offset, position;
>      struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
>
> *    if (!b->is_initialized) {*
> *        b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn;*
>          *b->is_initialized = 1;*
> *    }*
>
> => I don't see any reason to set b->min_seqn to mbuf->seqn and if that has
> to be done, the conditional checks should have been modified in function
> test_reorder_insert soon after a call to rte_reorder_insert. Additionally,
> the next seqn number being populated should have been changed in function
> test_reorder_insert:
>
>      ret = rte_reorder_insert(b, bufs[0]);
> *    if (!((ret == -1) && (rte_errno == ERANGE))) {*
> *        printf("%s:%d: No error inserting late packet with seqn:"*
> *                " 3 * size\n", __func__, __LINE__);*
> *        ret = -1;*
> *        goto exit;*
> *    }*
>
>      for (i = 0; i < num_bufs; i++)
>          bufs[i]->seqn = i;
>
> On the other hand, changing the code in function rte_reorder_insert:
> rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> {
>      uint32_t offset, position;
>      struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
>
>      if (!b->is_initialized) {
> *        b->min_seqn = 0;  //Removed initialization from mbuf->seqn*
>          b->is_initialized = 1;
>      }
> fixes the issues and the test case passes.
>
> Regards,
> Mukesh
Hi Mukesh,

The reason for that change is explained in its commit message and also 
in this thread:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017930.html

Hope this info helps to clarify your concern.

Sergio