On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 02:34:20PM +0100, Lavanya Govindarajan wrote:
> From: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com@intel.com>
>
> Added UT for the below four functions in test_mbuf.c
> rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list
> rte_get_tx_ol_flag_list
> rte_get_rx_ol_flag_name
> rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name
>
> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com@intel.com>
I suggest to change the patch title from
"app/test: add unit test cases to mbuf"
to
"app/test: add unit test for mbuf flag names"
> ---
> app/test/test_mbuf.c | 260 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 260 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_mbuf.c b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> index 28f3216c0..1a943518d 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> #define MBUF_TEST_DATA_LEN3 256
> #define MBUF_TEST_HDR1_LEN 20
> #define MBUF_TEST_HDR2_LEN 30
> +#define MBUF_TEST_LEN 250
> #define MBUF_TEST_ALL_HDRS_LEN (MBUF_TEST_HDR1_LEN+MBUF_TEST_HDR2_LEN)
> #define MBUF_TEST_SEG_SIZE 64
> #define MBUF_TEST_BURST 8
> @@ -1132,6 +1133,245 @@ test_tx_offload(void)
> return (v1 == v2) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> }
>
> +
> +static int
> +test_get_rx_ol_flag_list(void)
> +{
> + int len, ret = 0;
> + char buf[256] = "";
> + int buflen = 0;
> +
> + /* Test case to check with null buffer */
> + ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(0, NULL, 0);
> + if (ret != -1)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: -1, received = %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + /* Test case to check with zero buffer len */
> + ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_MASK, buf, 0);
> + if (ret != -1)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: -1, received = %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + buflen = strlen(buf);
> + if (buflen != 0)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s buffer should be empty, received = %d\n",
> + __func__, buflen);
> +
> + /* Test case to check with reduced buffer len */
> + len = sizeof(buf) - MBUF_TEST_LEN;
> + ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(0, buf, len);
Why using a #define for MBUF_TEST_LEN and not for char buf[256]?
Also, MBUF_TEST_LEN is not a very clear name.
So, I'd prefer to have an hardcoded value:
len = 5;
ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(0, buf, len);
> + if (ret != -1)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: -1, received = %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + buflen = strlen(buf);
> + if (buflen != (len - 1))
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s invalid buffer length retrieved, expected: %d,"
> + "received = %d\n", __func__,
> + (len - 1), buflen);
> +
> + /* Test case to check with zero mask value */
> + ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(0, buf, sizeof(buf));
> + if (ret != 0)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: 0, received = %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + buflen = strlen(buf);
> + if (buflen == 0)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: %s, received length = 0\n", __func__,
> + "non-zero, buffer should not be empty");
> +
> + /* Test case to check with valid mask value */
> + ret = rte_get_rx_ol_flag_list(PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD, buf, sizeof(buf));
> + if (ret != 0)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: 0, received = %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + buflen = strlen(buf);
> + if (buflen == 0)
> + GOTO_FAIL("%s expected: %s, received length = 0\n", __func__,
> + "non-zero, buffer should not be empty");
> +
> +
> + return 0;
> +fail:
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +test_get_tx_ol_flag_list(void)
> +{
Same comment as rx.
[...]
> +struct flag_name {
> + uint64_t flag;
> + const char *name;
> +};
> +
> +static int
> +test_get_rx_ol_flag_name(void)
> +{
> + uint16_t i;
> + const char *flag_str = NULL;
> + const struct flag_name rx_flags[] = {
> + { PKT_RX_VLAN, "PKT_RX_VLAN" },
> + { PKT_RX_RSS_HASH, "PKT_RX_RSS_HASH" },
> + { PKT_RX_FDIR, "PKT_RX_FDIR"},
> + { PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD, "PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD"},
> + { PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD, "PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD"},
> + { PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE, "PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_NONE"},
> + { PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD, "PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD"},
> + { PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD, "PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD"},
> + { PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_NONE, "PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_NONE"},
> + { PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD, "PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD" },
> + { PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED, "PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED" },
> + { PKT_RX_IEEE1588_PTP, "PKT_RX_IEEE1588_PTP"},
> + { PKT_RX_IEEE1588_TMST, "PKT_RX_IEEE1588_TMST"},
> + { PKT_RX_FDIR_ID, "PKT_RX_FDIR_ID"},
> + { PKT_RX_FDIR_FLX, "PKT_RX_FDIR_FLX"},
> + { PKT_RX_QINQ_STRIPPED, "PKT_RX_QINQ_STRIPPED" },
> + { PKT_RX_LRO, "PKT_RX_LRO" },
> + { PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP, "PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP"},
> + { PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD, "PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD" },
> + { PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD_FAILED, "PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD_FAILED" },
> + { PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_BAD, "PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_BAD" },
> + { PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD, "PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD"},
> + { PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_INVALID,
> + "PKT_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_INVALID" },
> + };
Since flag value and name are the same, why not using a #define
to ensure there is no typo? Something like this:
#define VAL_NAME(flag) { flag, #flag }
const struct flag_name rx_flags[] = {
VAL_NAME(PKT_RX_VLAN),
VAL_NAME(PKT_RX_RSS_HASH),
...
It makes me think that the same thing could be done in rte_mbuf.c
instead... in this case the test would become overkill.
[...]
> +static int
> +test_get_tx_ol_flag_name(void)
> +{
Same comment as rx.
Thanks,
Olivier
