From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA675A82 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:49:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id uy5so27320347obc.8 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:49:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Xcifim68J19xIhqs6taHUn3lTDCMjEjLZgHmIveEdPo=; b=JX5WNATnAfqTXNhsA9wEye+XQipNjnVKfjk53sNwXqG3t95Uq2AOfjrxWG4wFdpMPe WzGFuIs9mMAtocT4MeZ/RYw9+0gnqrfBYEDCKAKgxL2TnH7Yx3kO3cy59AiCRXEAIxtA MHz0UmJUmlJFzplAf0uiS2xRnxztdPib0JaRE+iUKqBT7H6oZZReDnjcPasccTskTvfO KZguexUUyowRqAcZILgOp22NQ908JPJ2MVy16lLtCtUGIajv0alNh/NpMDygQz1eGID0 G5HXDdEZmxVbeMClSWvNQRg2FoABOIshoUFyHJwEAA8Nw4xpUPT79Pb+et/lJ9nTuu7b +orQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFh2UVYIjjz44Waj5sjnObzz4ljkF81ggZtMvOX+X++DIl4bIEuGmoiVVsUervuFl2mUpC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.98.204 with SMTP id ek12mr17397201oeb.14.1421660960042; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:49:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.95.198 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:49:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286CB74C5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1419694115-1892-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <7022282.sJULtgJP1R@xps13> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286CB74C5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:49:19 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: "Qiu, Michael" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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 09:49:21 -0000 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. 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 ... Can anyone help document this / make it more user friendly / easier ? -- David Marchand