> On May 8, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, thanks for the patch!
> Reply inlined:
Hi Yipeng,
Thank you for the review!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thak...@arm.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 9:51 AM
>> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
>> <sameh.gobr...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; zhongdahulin...@163.com;
>> Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] test/hash: add test for 'free key with position'
>>
>> This patch adds a unit test for rte_hash_free_key_with_position().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Linfan <zhongdahulin...@163.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> app/test/test_hash.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash.c b/app/test/test_hash.c
>> index 390fbef87f42..a6949f2579a2 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_hash.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_hash.c
>> @@ -481,6 +481,87 @@ static int test_add_update_delete_free(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Sequence of operations for a single key with 'rw concurrency lock free'
>> set:
>> + * - add
>> + * - delete: hit
>> + * - free: hit
>> + * Repeat the test case when 'multi writer add' is enabled.
>> + * - add
>> + * - delete: hit
>> + * - free: hit
>> + */
>> +static int test_add_delete_free_lf(void)
>> +{
>> +#define LCORE_CACHE_SIZE 64
> [Wang, Yipeng] We could say this should match the #define LCORE_CACHE_SIZE
> value in rte_cuckoo_hash.h
Sure, will add in the next version.
> I also found the #define BUCKET_ENTRIES 4 in this file without comment. I
> think it should match #define RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES
> Which is supposed to be 8? If so please add a commit for bug fix.
I think this is done to test with bad parameters.
>
>> + struct rte_hash *handle;
>> + hash_sig_t hash_value;
>> + int pos, expectedPos, delPos;
>> + uint8_t extra_flag;
>> + uint32_t i, ip_src;
>> +
>> + extra_flag = ut_params.extra_flag;
>> + ut_params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
>> + handle = rte_hash_create(&ut_params);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR(handle == NULL, "hash creation failed");
>> + ut_params.extra_flag = extra_flag;
>> +
> [Wang, Yipeng] Here we could say:" The number of iterations is at least the
> same as the number of slots rte_hash allocates internally. This is to
> Reveal potential issues of not freeing keys successfully."
> Same for the other loop.
Will add in the next version.
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < ut_params.entries + 1; i++) {
>> + hash_value = rte_hash_hash(handle, &keys[0]);
>> + pos = rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(handle, &keys[0], hash_value);
>> + print_key_info("Add", &keys[0], pos);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR(pos < 0, "failed to add key (pos=%d)", pos);
> ..
>
> Thanks
> Yipeng
