On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:57:25PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-11-13 06:14, Neil Horman: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:03:18AM -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2014-10-08 15:14, Neil Horman: > > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2014-09-29 11:05, Bruce Richardson: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:08:55AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:28:05AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > 3) There is no test associated with this PMD. > > > > > > > That would have been a great comment to make a few months back, > > > > > > > though whats > > > > > > > wrong with testpmd here? That seems to be the same test that > > > > > > > every other pmd > > > > > > > uses. What exactly are you looking for? > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking of testing behaviour with different kernel > > > > > configurations and > > > > > unit tests for --vdev options. But it's not a major blocker. > > > > > > > > > Thats fine with me. If theres a set of unit tests that you have > > > > documentation > > > > for, I'm sure we would be happy to run them. I presume you just want > > > > all the > > > > pmd vdev option exercised? Any specific sets of kernel configurations? > > > > > > I don't really know which tests are needed. It could be a mix of unit > > > tests > > > and functionnal tests described in a test plan. > > > The goal is to be able to validate the behaviour and check there is no > > > regression. Ideally some corner cases could be described. > > > I'm OK to integrate it as is. But future maintenance will probably need > > > such inputs for validation tests. > > > Apologies for the delay on this, its been a busy time lately.
> > Do you have an example set of tests that the other pmd's have followed for > > this? > > You can check this: > http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_test_plan.rst > > http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_bonded_test_plan.rst > Looking at this, the pmd_test_plan above seems perfectly applicable to Johns pmd. did you feel as though additional tests were needed for a virutal pmd (asside from a note describing the additional --vdev parameter required for virtual device setup? I'll have a renamed device pmd patch up later today. Neil > As I said, we can integrate AF_PACKET PMD without such test plan. > But we are going to improve testing of many areas in DPDK. > > > > > > If RedHat is committed for its maintenance, it could integrated in > > > > > release 1.8. > > > > > But I'd like it to be renamed as pmd_af_packet (or a better name) > > > > > instead of > > > > > pmd_packet. > > > > > > > > > John L. is on his way to plumbers at the moment, so is unable to > > > > comment, but > > > > I'll try to get a few cycles to change the name of the PMD around. And > > > > yes, I > > > > thought that maintenance was implicit. He's the author, of course > > > > he'll take > > > > care of it :). And I'll be glad to help > > > > > > Do you have time in coming days to rebase and rename this PMD for > > > inclusion > > > in 1.8.0 release? > > Do you think a sub-tree with pull request model would help you for > maintenance of this PMD? > > -- > Thomas >
