On 18. 9. 2024 20:50, Jeremy Spewock wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 6:04 AM Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> wrote:
On 9. 9. 2024 17:55, Jeremy Spewock wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 8:16 AM Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> wrote:
On 12. 8. 2024 19:22, jspew...@iol.unh.edu wrote:
From: Jeremy Spewock <jspew...@iol.unh.edu>
The DTS framework in its current state supports binding ports to
different drivers on the SUT node but not the TG node. The TG node
already has the information that it needs about the different drivers
that it has available in the configuration file, but it did not
previously have access to the devbind script, so it did not use that
information for anything.
This patch moves the steps to copy the DPDK tarball into the node class
rather than the SUT node class, and calls this function on the TG node
as well as the SUT. It also moves the driver binding step into the Node
class and triggers the same pattern of binding to ports that existed on
the SUT on the TG.
This is a very inefficient way to do this. We'll have to build DPDK
twice and that's very time consuming. I was thinking in terms of just
This patch shouldn't be compiling DPDK twice, are you referring to the
process of copying the tarball over and extracting it taking too long?
If so, that makes sense that it takes longer than we need for this one
task. I figured it wouldn't hurt to have the whole DPDK directory
there, and that it could even be potentially useful to have it if the
TG ever needed it. That and it seemed like the most straightforward
way that kept these two set up in a similar way. Extracting the
tarball is obviously pretty quick, so I guess the real question here
is whether it is fine to add the time of one extra SCP of the DPDK
tarball around.
Ah, I didn't look carefully at the split. This is fine, but there some
things I noticed.
As Patrick mentioned, the docstrings in Node.set_up_build_target() and
SutNode.set_up_build_target() would need to be updated.
Why are we binding ports on the TG node?
I figured that the assumption would be that whatever is in the config
file is what the TG needs to be bound to in order to run the testing,
similarly to how we always bind on the SUT assuming that we need to be
using the DPDK driver to test DPDK.
Ah, I see. That makes sense now and we should do that. I was thinking a
bit ahead. If we have two traffic generators, one for performance, one
for functional testing, each using a different driver, we'd run into
problems there. We're not there yet, so that's a problem that will need
solving in a future patchset.
