From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net> Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD662BAB; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 19:20:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7BD21945; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:20:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=2TmHj4NUun+xqmW9h8hE0mB/3uGIOMkcFJKlGXkYTjA=; b=V6e7jRTU9aXo 7EZz7+kGFukWDxdLlNS8yKY0JP6JH6KX2uLlsDAP8Loaa9g4QEx32KQFIEfug5Ff JOlmYPKXEP1arok/c+yrUKiSTRrBidrCP91bzcn3TJCVUJiLKyx3FstMTgG+gNa1 oaqaOwFQTq1kmEfMt6mjW3JyBhOTPiY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=2TmHj4NUun+xqmW9h8hE0mB/3uGIOMkcFJKlGXkYT jA=; b=Cr0ioIO21ZQOQO/Bu/TG/JsWjzUHzP5L9u0stuQzIZ0BYnGWm80w1cQhe ExivEGf8Aic0Yp9Pfo42m6kd3XPRs1MY8ymktfMzYbq3JSM0u/sESgq1nWQBFu4R VbqdIt0dwgxqVHFUSbzFoYxODYCTws4rR0esIWfzXEnFfkrDY8oCG7oGH9q09rEN ecGzF1rE89bC90Djd1u6tBWMyC0bF4LMib35uAKF7GMGCTWyuW6v/Xl6tvqVdljH LSDeu12cscAadFhNn6ovI0jeK3UWpCWyo9iNfnSMq6EacAs5bKimthZLv45+cxt4 I/pq/gdqYjSV9TvPv0LReyo5QRbvA== X-ME-Sender: <xms:1aRMXGYYtE3VlCUp8-Pe6wZINT5Mxsr-3RnqyqBhDyJsapmqWf1P9Q> X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrieeigdduudehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjg hfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcu oehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtd efrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:1aRMXE2505-5MonWOvMvJqb8avoKK674fFsP85Y1JCgwisVW0HVi-Q> <xmx:1aRMXEipNa8o_V2T-yYlb_S59apCjhRJuzlpmnRib5uVkj3sAIDfrw> <xmx:1aRMXBrjViHUZnWyBlKYuUxChTBy_0pzQHRkyuFOWBYq8CEmls9kJQ> <xmx:1aRMXMkFUMd2i5Ec6x049vVDEoO_sgYF6Gr4vlo_0Qa65S4rwksJMw> Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EBADAE407B; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:20:03 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, ShuaiX Zhu <shuaix.zhu@intel.com>, Xueqin Lin <xueqin.lin@intel.com>, WenjieX A Li <wenjiex.a.li@intel.com>, FengqinX Wang <fengqinx.wang@intel.com>, dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 19:20:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1738923.4uAXThKVLp@xps> In-Reply-To: <0937580d-ddbf-f1f2-a6e2-e0d6dad0f33d@intel.com> References: <CGME20190125075604eucas1p2ecf0177c3f953e889721d784ef387254@eucas1p2.samsung.com> <88e56f1a-f86b-7b19-5f82-28ca31dfea7a@samsung.com> <0937580d-ddbf-f1f2-a6e2-e0d6dad0f33d@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test: test zero socket-mem as valid X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/> List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:20:06 -0000 25/01/2019 15:12, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 25-Jan-19 2:00 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > On 25.01.2019 16:48, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > >> On 25-Jan-19 9:53 AM, David Marchand wrote: > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com>> > >> > >> Now that i think of it, maybe it's not that simple. > >> > >> --socket-mem/-m flag with zero is still an invalid value *if* --legacy-mem is involved. However, it is a valid value in non-legacy mode. > >> > >> So maybe the test should reflect this, and the previous fix should have instead added a check for legacy mode rather than disabling the zero check outright. > >> > > > > I don't think that it's a big deal, because "--socket-mem=0 --legacy-mem" > > quickly fails with clear: > > > > EAL: WARNING: Master core has no memory on local socket! > > > > IMHO, It's actually more informative than previous: > > > > EAL: invalid parameters for --socket-limit > > > > I agree that we could add a test for a legacy-mem cases, but that's a bit > > different task. > > Good point. Maybe leave it as is then :) > > Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> Applied, thanks