From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF153A0546; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:07:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B905A1BF9E; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:07:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B7C1BF67 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:07:14 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594912034; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dh5XKn4HxTBZkKNA5fdal95mPke+vLMzINg+FZYLaZI=; b=JPvofLgwipgldzWbt0jsARUyrqUnfEu798RUvpxiv1UREs5+imzkTCm9XBX4uqVjX+SU30 0QqGFhSQd+OH9Snf8q3DPYVMy5NpN/JeV9wZ3zGxMNvDAhECoqWePwU6Bw15UTtHBNSPci IV79MsYFnKqliTRTxATYot04sRMTG+g= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-414-1e9cz4zbMf6kZ6yJMOJ-XQ-1; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:07:12 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 1e9cz4zbMf6kZ6yJMOJ-XQ-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id u203so2149606vkb.9 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dh5XKn4HxTBZkKNA5fdal95mPke+vLMzINg+FZYLaZI=; b=ToX3/cLNAJv05b1eXxfXMVNpqBI8NRH1tOjduPvgd8YtA4QuBibamo4inqDlsk5Ur5 QQyFnvqnptari6MYMl3lYVpM/yt61wifoIo0Ispj7ey+dF685PdPEE41N8NVwx9QPyVw 2pY9JhNrCzOsFge29oDFba3RZY3kFUsyV1znPdtR/zQatg2ENc0ttglOqY3ElTcxx8Sq qH9YY8DBXp5c7cd0Hfiqz+r0k4govFnBEDZhiKUe6ol/l8ZsMXkpHNGKXjk3zVtRXrje x3F/z+qDEhiFNGnwtWNEkf01tncDNcUsUErF9gI/nkybfDFsURGiRHtzcg+cC9vnNtMj 9TWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Flgch3YYVQNRAiwdBcze8sGHklQGHpYpENmt7qVDCd51ewRoL 9DZaR3y6cUtUnzWDuMNZ2W9wf2Ha48mW7e7PfKlnlgJNL4RkLcHToKmFBuhaC/HPA82BjuOkpK0 D/6A4G9v5OxUhkq9JpHM= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:255:: with SMTP id 82mr3654772vkc.39.1594912031736; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzg3cKZm9cYB5esjjQYWisOVWgdfnqe4SLmsfT8+NflnfOhjexwaZRk22cMuFAJyM+VZQlH2Bn9+SvxhsfVg9o= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:255:: with SMTP id 82mr3654709vkc.39.1594912031386; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200715202006.19781-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20200715202006.19781-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:06:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Hemant Agrawal , Nipun Gupta , Pavan Nikhilesh Cc: dev , Lukasz Wojciechowski , Aaron Conole , nd , Honnappa Nagarahalli X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change the log level for test assert macro X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:20 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > Change the log level for RTE_TEST_ASSERT macro to error to help > log errors while running test cases. > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > --- > lib/librte_eal/include/rte_test.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_test.h b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_test.h > index 89e47f47a..62c8f165a 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_test.h > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_test.h > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > > #define RTE_TEST_ASSERT(cond, msg, ...) do { \ > if (!(cond)) { \ > - RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Test assert %s line %d failed: " \ > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Test assert %s line %d failed: " \ > msg "\n", __func__, __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > RTE_TEST_TRACE_FAILURE(__FILE__, __LINE__, __func__); \ > return -1; \ > -- > 2.17.1 > I proposed it, so I can't disagree :-) RTE_TEST_ASSERT* are used in eventdev driver selftests. I don't see why more output in error cases would be detrimental. Any objection? Thanks. -- David Marchand