From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yong.liu@intel.com>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0A82B88
 for <dts@dpdk.org>; Thu,  2 Mar 2017 09:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2017 00:20:17 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,230,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="1103898969"
Received: from stv-crb-56.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.128.116])
 ([10.239.128.116])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2017 00:20:16 -0800
Message-ID: <58B7D3F5.9070203@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:12:37 +0800
From: "Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Xu, HuilongX" <huilongx.xu@intel.com>, "dts@dpdk.org" <dts@dpdk.org>
References: <1488360320-42799-1-git-send-email-huilongx.xu@intel.com>
 <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62D6C3AC@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <DF2A19295B96364286FEB7F3DDA27A4668D58518@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF2A19295B96364286FEB7F3DDA27A4668D58518@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test
 case
X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions <dts.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dts>,
 <mailto:dts-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dts/>
List-Post: <mailto:dts@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dts-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dts>,
 <mailto:dts-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:20:18 -0000

Huilong,
My question is that whether only check output log from testpmd is enough 
for function check? Should hash function be validated too?

On 03/02/2017 04:14 PM, Xu, HuilongX wrote:
>>> +
>> >Not sure set and get is enough for validation, hash function not checked here.
> This case only check update slave0 hash function, and slave1 will auto sync hash function.
> So there are two check point.
> First point: salv0 and slav1 hash function must same
> Second point: slav0 hash function update successful.