On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-10 13:56, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 8:22 PM Mattias Rönnblom
> > <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >> +static int
> >> +test_dispatcher(void)
> >> +{
> >> + return unit_test_suite_runner(&test_suite);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(dispatcher_autotest, false, true, test_dispatcher);
> >
> > Since this test expects some lcores, wdyt of adding:
> >
> > @@ -1044,6 +1044,12 @@ static struct unit_test_suite test_suite = {
> > static int
> > test_dispatcher(void)
> > {
> > + if (rte_lcore_count() < NUM_SERVICE_CORES + 1) {
> > + printf("Not enough cores for dispatcher_autotest,
> > expecting at least %u\n",
> > + NUM_SERVICE_CORES + 1);
> > + return TEST_SKIPPED;
> > + }
> > +
> > return unit_test_suite_runner(&test_suite);
> > }
> >
> > This should avoid the failures we get with some CI env.
> > (additionnally, I tested this on my laptop and the test runs fine)
> >
> >
>
> Indeed, this is a much better way than to fail the test case.
>
> I'm thinking this is best done in test_setup(), since it's related to
> the setup. In case other test cases are added that required a different
> setup, there may be no minimum lcore requirement.
This is what I had tried as a first attempt but as I hit some crashes
in the teardown step, I went with the easiest fix.
>
> You will get multiple (four, for the moment) print-outs though, in case
> you run with fewer than 4 lcores.
>
> I'll also make sure I skip (and not fail) the tests in case the DSW
> event device is not included in the build.
>
Yep, it is better like this.
Thanks for v7, I'll have a look today.
--
David Marchand
