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 33211A04B5; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:47:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94DD2B86; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:47:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8622B82 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:47:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1603651649; 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=a07h7n9rawOcvYVp/YA/8Ci8Qulf34g16SOk49uP/aI=; b=JMLnR5ew2FTogV3/nZdf6ds6UCFDAItdagroN3qo5jLkdXT6eNP0ldLDMmeF2IeQAWm9E0 jUPCi2IXaQeJ0PkxFD2D6Il6uKwkuuxDtUD4rsxSB8wU2R2KToaOQXyMWvmQENV0wXk5kd w/8drHJQ3khyoGXl6CXuyovTg0tYo0M= Received: from mail-vs1-f70.google.com (mail-vs1-f70.google.com [209.85.217.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-487-EfsRSMOlOMOVkd090lwB-w-1; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:47:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EfsRSMOlOMOVkd090lwB-w-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f70.google.com with SMTP id j190so1260480vsc.0 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:47:27 -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=a07h7n9rawOcvYVp/YA/8Ci8Qulf34g16SOk49uP/aI=; b=PttuSY3dwJwrIBOdbmRG47JnZ3HOikkKnjuGGeWg6GfLT8rcrZDOibR8DGWpOtXsLk rZ/4wMu1R6aDARdtzXnLxXm/d+dtScJdPC5F1eFNPcX0OgJopaVrGSTQ98XnXqKcUILF gULL0xG9vbJKv4auJK9gtxZy5t9KOLMLrjP/nnT+KZ8ZCBKi/0Phxkyvz6CbJ0Zzvpmm G8q5hAgxlgNJfaKyWvhKGwBFp/soFCtTt3+pPiRnTa4gzdfpx1TwyxKEbWigTxToEAEg 1A+yYnSZvrxE6SagxWvbzQCJy/Q7+pHGrDfaFr/pCWJecPfq+sUZ+coG1pApOH233XiJ J88g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5300Y85gEykQZpcCtY4m2CETf4Fi91pYw7Oo1EAyZcZzpuXfHtHf KFWcD0yP50wU8NmxGeeLlZMPnUWu1lp1giE0Xy7lk4QM1XZ7sd9l1LbfLntqatnHjxGLDBprnY6 0IywIGGPzLBLEWElS/o8= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7313:: with SMTP id v19mr13375572uao.87.1603651647341; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxweBmIuzXg2eMQOeh612hY46k22L5Uezrf9pMPFZL4CQm0c1faCxkZ57UYyywbKfed4TDeIavyh/3NgP/Kofg= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7313:: with SMTP id v19mr13375562uao.87.1603651647113; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200922143202.8755-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20201025165719.6106-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20201025165719.6106-5-stephen@networkplumber.org> In-Reply-To: <20201025165719.6106-5-stephen@networkplumber.org> From: David Marchand Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:47:16 +0100 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev , Luca Boccassi , Thomas Monjalon Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/5] app/test: use new allowlist and blocklist 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" Archived-At: List-Archive: On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 5:59 PM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ do_recursive_call(void) > { "test_main_lcore_flag", no_action }, > { "test_invalid_n_flag", no_action }, > { "test_no_hpet_flag", no_action }, > - { "test_whitelist_flag", no_action }, > + { "test_allowlist_flag", no_action }, "test_allow_flag" This is the reason for the current CI UT failure. > { "test_invalid_b_flag", no_action }, > { "test_invalid_vdev_flag", no_action }, > { "test_invalid_r_flag", no_action }, [snip] > @@ -1492,9 +1492,9 @@ test_eal_flags(void) > return ret; > } > > - ret = test_whitelist_flag(); > + ret = test_allow_flag(); > if (ret < 0) { > - printf("Error in test_invalid_whitelist_flag()\n"); > + printf("Error in test_invalid_allow_flag()\n"); printf("Error in test_allow_flag()\n"); > return ret; > } > While at it. As far as patch 3 of this series is concerned, you can probably look again at the comments I made on v1 (no need for a -B short option introduction). Plus, mix of tabs/spaces, mix of allow-block/include-exclude, in the comments, usage() strings, plus hardcoded strings rather than use of "--" OPT_XXX. -- David Marchand