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 A9F23A046B for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:10:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63EA537A8; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:10:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f171.google.com (mail-vk1-f171.google.com [209.85.221.171]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAEC326D for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id g124so1261500vkd.1 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:10:01 -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=zmIqwNb0zdbS0+u3HESHgUM+xMOu8X8g+ogaQiEXXHI=; b=ZmcT9IwpTBnGt3MPQIkwU25jdXLJ+ewOMm1DCpKvDor2ya3xZRPPF11Fd9YdgCLtg2 I5/hNgKusbR0q0EAdaxKxPT31Wng01lKPvN6s8Z87e15iMa9PJmGhRQzhARHChCUbjuj qe4z5Xu5OJJTLeTz9wxRL2U0yy7jSF+417d4qKGTafzW2Yib/KM9d+UN9xuKBr+kyptV KiYTj9s9oDliDFTIJSR3J04EGQDHpMHJtqUfLkiescL4CU/oCVk/poOUpCxWt4PpjloE 3nhhpJsxE4kHbQThXqZTVEXNr8TR0FFQ6jfR/9NEnrcH7FEyyecvvZgxnWuOTgagSHQU hOKA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVruFBTbMdNqZosLcUvF4MlntDrPyQLddhUiIGW0VhWRe3XHYX5 cEGhkVrIMbThf+gMNr/5T0X+eUZn8vpgQS2GPdpNGQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzGYSSU5ZbUKZXC0ZhbSUnK3twjeAtgr4Ww8aZx9S9fz+K1GjTpiciehgh0IeoxgdiQmgUi+l9mryOyYdMzXYI= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:144:: with SMTP id 65mr3731601vkb.53.1561731000764; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:10:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190628034406.5399-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <20190628034406.5399-2-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:09:49 +0200 Message-ID: To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: dev , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , nd , dpdk stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] test/rcu: address test case failure 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 Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:54 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli < Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:44 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli < > honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote: > > Test case for rte_rcu_qsbr_get_memsize is written specifically > for 128 threads. Do not use RTE_MAX_LCORE as it changes for > different configurations. > > > > Does it mean this test can only work on arm with 256 lcores? > > How many cores does this test require? > > *[Honnappa] *It tests the correctness of the calculation of the memory > required. So, it uses the hand calculated number to verify. The hand > calculated number is for 128 cores. So, it does not depend on the platform > as such. > Ah ah, funny that the default RTE_MAX_LCORE for x86 is 128, and then I did not see the test failing. Then ok for this fix. Reviewed-by: David Marchand How about the followup patch: - TEST_RCU_QSBR_RETURN_IF_ERROR((sz != 8384 && sz != 16768), - "Get Memsize for 128 threads"); + TEST_RCU_QSBR_RETURN_IF_ERROR( +#if RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE == 64 + sz != 8384 +#elif RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE == 128 + sz != 16768 +#endif + , "Get Memsize for 128 threads"); -- David Marchand