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 8C5A9A052B for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:21:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C5D1BFF4; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:21:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEDB1BE9A for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:21:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1596032494; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6WjwOb4vo14Wa8s4Q03Ccyq1GGMCLfSqlnbxZtKKF8c=; b=Y3vs/dWwoPUtMOWmw5jcq5dKKtrIpKsjFoP0VYmXjEDfvB0n3UI15ZjBcrXeSvtYaYjGFu NA1+vMvQANZZhQ0f7ZEMpReiAePT2ynWqsHzYOMeX+SlUMRFwZn5JNBe6pzk3ax1bnRGNB bE6LOZNKu7Q9U5rtr2c2jl8d54sn27w= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-151-nBvs12BAPWeVwa1Zdq-OQA-1; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:21:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nBvs12BAPWeVwa1Zdq-OQA-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id l26so3051452vsb.23 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:21:29 -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=6WjwOb4vo14Wa8s4Q03Ccyq1GGMCLfSqlnbxZtKKF8c=; b=Elwjuy2aa+SPT0yBiIF9gYPp9iWIjZPZg+sj+iLzLFRRY6kzUDVH6sOx562EQka+GC SABJ6YQkdRYo13GtP9HcDp7Alxi7LIWEPAzzyx497WzbVeEih1SKubtCJoNI9jCazq/0 piGfGlf9L3XhymJkyJcXGGGIVo1TgIm2Z6blo0VrfC2yyYV/wzvRcJBR0JTL2rGpxaJA mlqtvOCXTQ0CjH8A2TZ7RDnfZNOVihYPXWrljp3h9ziQkLYR95etUtGK0q/rz5vfyMsi Vw8psbJnI/4ZrvZzjzjcjBHrVStzP8NvLtKygZHjfYcOptcFV7zGBORHJZTf6E+mnkxy yxHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WyuWK/yIiO1oQvGEaanIU/DWzcT7icFRgvijmc5Vw8Bi42Imh wU9o+LJszZWMGf2DAixNXDB/erY0Z4OugbXsdiT5lmneu/RI3SZcK/VKq5FNQYB7VymdJJqnD2X SHMneuuPgYnKImoSx7u9pbTY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:c58c:: with SMTP id h12mr24681983vsk.141.1596032489543; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztXqiwKNryrC6F7QRHSHjIcyjbrCD9BgsepGHpNsaWpl3S8OXi/LstZ6qjNJ6wl+JPzlJMsL9KZFMGqrofDcg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:c58c:: with SMTP id h12mr24681942vsk.141.1596032489311; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200729063105.11299-1-feifei.wang2@arm.com> <20200729063105.11299-3-feifei.wang2@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:21:18 +0200 Message-ID: To: Feifei Wang Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Konstantin Ananyev , Gavin Hu , Olivier Matz , dev , nd , dpdk stable X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] test/ring: fix wrong param passed to the enqueue APIs X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:16 PM Feifei Wang wrote: > > Are we missing a check in the UT so that dequeued object is what had been > > enqueued? > > > > > Dequeue is not necessary to change because the param defined in rte_ring_dequeue > is different from that in rte_ring_enqueue: > rte_ring_enqueue(struct rte_ring *r, void *obj): obj is a pointer (object) to be added in the ring > rte_ring_dequeue(struct rte_ring *r, void **obj_p): obj_p is a pointer to a void * pointer > (object) that will be filled. That I get it. What I meant is that the test enqueues an object in a ring until it is full [1], then dequeues all the ring [2]. 1: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/app/test/test_ring.c#n814 2: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/app/test/test_ring.c#n825 If the test had checked that dequeued objects are the right one, we would have caught it. But on the other hand, maybe another part of the functionnal ring tests already check this and we only need to fix this issue here. -- David Marchand