From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B14DE0 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 10:31:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1491035520; x=1522571520; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4ztUyeFMzXJzVBivj+84TKy1OHguuYLip2cFGACRPTU=; b=IkUWyzMkvKA0hMb+emQSG26m1POHz4xhEHjN3H//EjSl6bX9wMPdD/E5 PNtOPtki3htQbJD4OHP/MSBWbK4qog==; Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2017 01:31:58 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,256,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="72478405" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2017 01:31:58 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 01:31:58 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by FMSMSX155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 01:31:57 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.224]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 16:31:54 +0800 From: "Xu, HuilongX" To: "Liu, Yong" , "dts@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dts] [PATCH 0/4] compile dpdk different config with different test suite by dts framework befor run test suite Thread-Index: AQHSqsDb2ZZSem/qUU2noezjwJG7l6GwLMUQ Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 08:31:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1491032552-118473-1-git-send-email-huilongx.xu@intel.com> <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62DA35F7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E62DA35F7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH 0/4] compile dpdk different config with different test suite by dts framework befor run test suite X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 08:32:01 -0000 See my comments > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Yong > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 4:21 PM > To: Xu, HuilongX; dts@dpdk.org > Cc: Xu, HuilongX > Subject: RE: [dts] [PATCH 0/4] compile dpdk different config with differe= nt > test suite by dts framework befor run test suite >=20 > Thanks huilong. The overall idea look good for me. Just some comments as > below: >=20 > 1. Configuration dependency should be based on test case not suite. > Configuration requirements maybe changed even in one suite. If config dependency test case, must get all case name, but if case name sa= me, maybe have issue. > 2. No need to compile all compile sessions. If cases not in execution lis= t, we > can skip it. It will save more time :) The config is global, if test suite not in exection.cfg, the compile sessio= n will skip. 3. Assume that suite can remove all dpdk > build related code, cause of framework can make case not aware of > configuration dependencies. Maybe can savel compile switch in target result, but it only for check. Bec= ause, when we development a case. We should know compile switch config and compile.cfg is static and global. = So not need know dependencies. >=20 > Thanks, > Marvin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dts [mailto:dts-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of xu,huilong > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 3:42 PM > > To: dts@dpdk.org > > Cc: Xu, HuilongX > > Subject: [dts] [PATCH 0/4] compile dpdk different config with > > different test suite by dts framework befor run test suite > > > > we should compile dpdk many times for different test suite. > > if we exec a test suite must update dpdk compile suite or change dpdk > > code, we must cpmpile dpdk two times at least. > > So this change for read exec test_suite list and compile dpdk befor > > run test suite. > > > > update list: > > 1. conf/common_base > > this is dpdk all compile switch from dpdk source code. it for > > check compile.cfg switch vaild. > > 2. conf/compile.cfg > > compile config template, detaile config please see comments in > > file 3. framework/config.py > > parse compile.cfg, detaile info please see comments in commit 4. > > framework/project_dpdk.py > > a)define interface for test suit: > > reset_compile_target() > > b) read compile conf and get test suite list, then update compile > > switch and compile dpdk 5. framework/dts.py > > set test suite list > > 6. tests/TestSuite_coremask.py and tests/TestSuite_queue_start_stop.py > > example for use compile config. > > Now old interface for compile dpdk is vaild, so other case will also > > run pass. > > > > xu,huilong (4): > > add dpdk all compile switch > > add compile config file template and parse compile config class > > read compile switch config and compile dpdk before test > > add example for test suite > > > > conf/common_base | 632 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > conf/compile.cfg | 30 ++ > > framework/config.py | 21 +- > > framework/dts.py | 2 +- > > framework/project_dpdk.py | 103 +++++- > > tests/TestSuite_coremask.py | 12 +- > > tests/TestSuite_queue_start_stop.py | 28 +- > > 7 files changed, 789 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) create mode > > 100644 conf/common_base create mode 100644 conf/compile.cfg > > > > -- > > 1.9.3