Hi Maxime,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:11 AM
> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.var...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> gak...@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <t...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
>
>
>
> On 2/8/23 21:38, Vargas, Hernan wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > We would like to keep the same signature for validate_dec_op because there
> are functions such as latency_test_dec that have vector_mask on their
> signatures and they pass it to validate_dec_op.
> > Let me know if you'd like to discuss more.
>
> I think this is not a valid reason, just simplify latency_test_dec too.
The principle is that all these functions may or may not use that generic
operation masks, but we still use a stable (future proof) and consistent
prototype for these
test functions.
I believe this is valid and better practice for the test functions, but again
if you really want to push back, this could be changed.
Thanks!!
Nic
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
>
> > Thanks,
> > Hernan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:36 AM
> > To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.var...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > gak...@marvell.com; Rix, Tom <t...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> > <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 13/13] test/bbdev: remove iteration count check
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/23 17:50, Hernan Vargas wrote:
> >> To make the test compatible with devices that do not support early
> >> termination, the iteration count assert can be removed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.var...@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 6 +-----
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> >> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> >> index 81bf2c8b60..c68d79cf29 100644
> >> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> >> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> >> @@ -2290,6 +2290,7 @@ static int
> >> validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n,
> >> struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op, const int vector_mask)
> >> {
> >> + RTE_SET_USED(vector_mask);
> >
> > Why not just remove vector_mask if it isn't of any use instead of hiding the
> warning?
> >
> >> unsigned int i;
> >> int ret;
> >> struct op_data_entries *hard_data_orig = @@ -2299,17 +2300,12
> @@
> >> validate_dec_op(struct rte_bbdev_dec_op **ops, const uint16_t n,
> >> struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ops_td;
> >> struct rte_bbdev_op_data *hard_output;
> >> struct rte_bbdev_op_data *soft_output;
> >> - struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *ref_td = &ref_op->turbo_dec;
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
> >> ops_td = &ops[i]->turbo_dec;
> >> hard_output = &ops_td->hard_output;
> >> soft_output = &ops_td->soft_output;
> >>
> >> - if (vector_mask & TEST_BBDEV_VF_EXPECTED_ITER_COUNT)
> >> - TEST_ASSERT(ops_td->iter_count <= ref_td-
> >iter_count,
> >> - "Returned iter_count (%d) > expected
> iter_count (%d)",
> >> - ops_td->iter_count, ref_td-
> >iter_count);
> >> ret = check_dec_status_and_ordering(ops[i], i, ref_op-
> >status);
> >> TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret,
> >> "Checking status and ordering for
> >> decoder
> failed");
> >
> > Maxime
> >
