diff mbox series

[v1,06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure

Message ID 20230929181328.104311-7-hernan.vargas@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Maxime Coquelin
Headers
Series test-bbdev changes for 23.11 |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Hernan Vargas Sept. 29, 2023, 6:13 p.m. UTC 
  Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.

Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
---
 app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Maxime Coquelin Oct. 17, 2023, 7:43 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
> ---
>   app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>   	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>   	 */
>   	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
> -	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf),
> +			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>   	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>   
>   	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value = rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,

If should be a fix IMO.
With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:

Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Maxime
Chautru, Nicolas Oct. 19, 2023, 8:41 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Maxime, 

Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable release, it tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable release which can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value if any to user/developper.
Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of appetite for very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit adoption, so would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug. 
Kindly share your thoughts.

Thanks
Nic


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
> > Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> > index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> > @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
> >   	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
> >   	 */
> >   	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
> > -	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
> &ts_params->qconf),
> > +			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
> >   	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
> >
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
> 
> If should be a fix IMO.
> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Maxime
Maxime Coquelin Oct. 19, 2023, 8:47 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Nicolas,

On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable release, it tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable release which can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value if any to user/developper.
> Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of appetite for very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit adoption, so would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
> Kindly share your thoughts.

Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite useful
in my opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?

Maxime
> Thanks
> Nic
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>> index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>>>    	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>>>    	 */
>>>    	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
>>> -	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
>> &ts_params->qconf),
>>> +			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>>>    	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>>>
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
>> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
>>
>> If should be a fix IMO.
>> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>
Chautru, Nicolas Oct. 19, 2023, 12:12 p.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Maxime, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:47 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Vargas, Hernan
> <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom
> <trix@redhat.com>
> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable release, it
> tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable release which
> can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value if any
> to user/developper.
> > Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of appetite for
> very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit adoption, so
> would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
> > Kindly share your thoughts.
> 
> Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite useful in my
> opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?

I don’t personally think this (or for other commit on that serie) hits that bar for being required in stable release. This ends up being counterproductive having stable release with a huge amount of commits that are not really required, and it ends up being a reason for people not to move to stable release. 
But if you are really convinced, ok to follow your reco. 

> 
> Maxime
> > Thanks
> > Nic
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
> >> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> >> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> >> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
> >> queue configure
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
> >>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
> >>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> >>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04
> >>> 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
> >>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
> >>>    	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
> >>>    	 */
> >>>    	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
> >>> -	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
> >>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
> >> &ts_params->qconf),
> >>> +			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
> >>>    	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
> >>>
> >>>    	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
> >> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
> >>
> >> If should be a fix IMO.
> >> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Maxime
> >
Maxime Coquelin Oct. 23, 2023, 9:05 a.m. UTC | #5 
On 10/19/23 14:12, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:47 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Vargas, Hernan
>> <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom
>> <trix@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>
>>> Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable release, it
>> tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable release which
>> can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value if any
>> to user/developper.
>>> Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of appetite for
>> very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit adoption, so
>> would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
>>> Kindly share your thoughts.
>>
>> Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite useful in my
>> opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?
> 
> I don’t personally think this (or for other commit on that serie) hits that bar for being required in stable release. This ends up being counterproductive having stable release with a huge amount of commits that are not really required, and it ends up being a reason for people not to move to stable release.
> But if you are really convinced, ok to follow your reco.

Adding LTS maintainers if they want to step in.

Personally, I think ot should be backported.

Maxime

>>
>> Maxime
>>> Thanks
>>> Nic
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
>>>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
>>>> queue configure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>>>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>>>>>     	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>     	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
>>>>> -	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
>>>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
>>>> &ts_params->qconf),
>>>>> +			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>>>>>     	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>>>>>
>>>>>     	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
>>>> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
>>>>
>>>> If should be a fix IMO.
>>>> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Maxime
>>>
>
Maxime Coquelin Oct. 23, 2023, 9:07 a.m. UTC | #6 
With LTS maintainers actually added... sorry.

On 10/23/23 11:05, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/23 14:12, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:47 AM
>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Vargas, Hernan
>>> <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom
>>> <trix@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for 
>>> queue configure
>>>
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>>
>>>> Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable 
>>>> release, it
>>> tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable 
>>> release which
>>> can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value 
>>> if any
>>> to user/developper.
>>>> Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of 
>>>> appetite for
>>> very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit 
>>> adoption, so
>>> would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
>>>> Kindly share your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite 
>>> useful in my
>>> opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?
>>
>> I don’t personally think this (or for other commit on that serie) hits 
>> that bar for being required in stable release. This ends up being 
>> counterproductive having stable release with a huge amount of commits 
>> that are not really required, and it ends up being a reason for people 
>> not to move to stable release.
>> But if you are really convinced, ok to follow your reco.
> 
> Adding LTS maintainers if they want to step in.
> 
> Personally, I think ot should be backported.
> 
> Maxime
> 
>>>
>>> Maxime
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Nic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
>>>>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>>>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
>>>>> queue configure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>>>>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04
>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>>>>>>          * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>>>>>>          */
>>>>>>         ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
>>>>>> -    rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
>>>>>> +    TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
>>>>> &ts_params->qconf),
>>>>>> +            "Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>>>>>>         rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
>>>>> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
>>>>>
>>>>> If should be a fix IMO.
>>>>> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Maxime
>>>>
>>
Kevin Traynor Oct. 23, 2023, 3:10 p.m. UTC | #7 
On 23/10/2023 10:07, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> With LTS maintainers actually added... sorry.
> 
> On 10/23/23 11:05, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/23 14:12, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:47 AM
>>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Vargas, Hernan
>>>> <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom
>>>> <trix@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
>>>> queue configure
>>>>
>>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable
>>>>> release, it
>>>> tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable
>>>> release which
>>>> can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value
>>>> if any
>>>> to user/developper.
>>>>> Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of
>>>>> appetite for
>>>> very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit
>>>> adoption, so
>>>> would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
>>>>> Kindly share your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite
>>>> useful in my
>>>> opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I don’t personally think this (or for other commit on that serie) hits
>>> that bar for being required in stable release. This ends up being
>>> counterproductive having stable release with a huge amount of commits
>>> that are not really required, and it ends up being a reason for people
>>> not to move to stable release.
>>> But if you are really convinced, ok to follow your reco.
>>
>> Adding LTS maintainers if they want to step in.
>>
>> Personally, I think ot should be backported.
>>

We wrote the policy [0] with exactly this type of discussion in mind :-)

"All patches accepted on the main branch with a Fixes: tag should be 
backported to the relevant stable/LTS branches, unless the submitter 
indicates otherwise. If there are exceptions, they will be discussed on 
the mailing lists."

The idea behind the policy is to try and avoid spending time on 
subjective discussions about how bad the bug being fixed should be 
before it is backported, and to avoid different LTS maintainers making 
different judgements about the same fixes on different branches.

So we try to keep it simple - if it's a bugfix, backport it. If there's 
a specific reason not too, fine.

So if it's fixing something, please add the Fixes: tag and we'll take it 
from there into the LTS.

thanks,
Kevin.

[0] 
http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/stable.html#what-changes-should-be-backported

>> Maxime
>>
>>>>
>>>> Maxime
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Nic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
>>>>>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>>>>> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
>>>>>> queue configure
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>>>>>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>      app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04
>>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>>>>>>>           * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>>>>>>>           */
>>>>>>>          ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
>>>>>>> -    rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
>>>>>>> +    TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
>>>>>> &ts_params->qconf),
>>>>>>> +            "Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>>>>>>>          rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
>>>>>> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If should be a fix IMO.
>>>>>> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Maxime
>>>>>
>>>
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
@@ -366,7 +366,8 @@  test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
 	 * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
 	 */
 	ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
-	rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
+	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf),
+			"Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
 	rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
 
 	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value = rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,