Sarosh,
I cherry picked your patch on current main branch and it works and
builds without problems,
maybe try resubmitting it as v3.
Best regards
Lukasz
W dniu 24.06.2020 o 12:02, Sarosh Arif pisze:
> Some tests are failing on this patch but I don't think the reason
> behind the failure is this patch. Is there a certain way to know that
> the problem is in the patch or somewhere else?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Sarosh Arif <sarosh.a...@emumba.com> wrote:
>> Some tests are failing on this patch but I don't think the reason behind the
>> failure is this patch. Is there a certain way to know that the problem is in
>> the patch or somewhere else?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:20 PM Sarosh Arif <sarosh.a...@emumba.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, will do that.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:08 PM Lukasz Wojciechowski
>>> <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 15.04.2020 o 09:06, Sarosh Arif pisze:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I plan to work on them when I get time.
>>>>
>>>> Great, please add me to CC. I would be glad to review it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:52 AM Lukasz Wojciechowski
>>>> <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> W dniu 15.04.2020 o 08:42, Sarosh Arif pisze:
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> remove double freeing of mbufs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sarosh Arif <sarosh.a...@emumba.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> app/test/test_distributor.c | 9 +++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test/test_distributor.c b/app/test/test_distributor.c
>>>>>> index ba1f81cf8..5e972bb2e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/app/test/test_distributor.c
>>>>>> +++ b/app/test/test_distributor.c
>>>>>> @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ sanity_test(struct worker_params *wp, struct
>>>>>> rte_mempool *p)
>>>>>> printf("Line %d: Error, not all packets flushed. "
>>>>>> "Expected %u, got %u\n",
>>>>>> __LINE__, BURST, total_packet_count());
>>>>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, BURST);
>>>>>> return -1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -153,6 +154,7 @@ sanity_test(struct worker_params *wp, struct
>>>>>> rte_mempool *p)
>>>>>> printf("Line %d: Error, not all packets flushed. "
>>>>>> "Expected %u, got %u\n",
>>>>>> __LINE__, BURST,
>>>>>> total_packet_count());
>>>>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, BURST);
>>>>>> return -1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -179,6 +181,7 @@ sanity_test(struct worker_params *wp, struct
>>>>>> rte_mempool *p)
>>>>>> printf("Line %d: Error, not all packets flushed. "
>>>>>> "Expected %u, got %u\n",
>>>>>> __LINE__, BURST, total_packet_count());
>>>>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)bufs, BURST);
>>>>>> return -1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -233,6 +236,7 @@ sanity_test(struct worker_params *wp, struct
>>>>>> rte_mempool *p)
>>>>>> if (num_returned != BIG_BATCH) {
>>>>>> printf("line %d: Missing packets, expected %d\n",
>>>>>> __LINE__, num_returned);
>>>>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)many_bufs, BIG_BATCH);
>>>>>> return -1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -247,6 +251,7 @@ sanity_test(struct worker_params *wp, struct
>>>>>> rte_mempool *p)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (j == BIG_BATCH) {
>>>>>> printf("Error: could not find source packet
>>>>>> #%u\n", i);
>>>>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(p, (void *)many_bufs,
>>>>>> BIG_BATCH);
>>>>>> return -1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>
>>>>> The sanity_test is ok now and does not have any mempool leaks.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about other tests in this file: Do you plan to work on them also?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukasz Wojciechowski
>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
>>>>> Samsung Electronics
>>>>> Office +48 22 377 88 25
>>>>> l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Lukasz Wojciechowski
>>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
>>>> Samsung Electronics
>>>> Office +48 22 377 88 25
>>>> l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
--
Lukasz Wojciechowski
Principal Software Engineer
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Office +48 22 377 88 25
l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
