On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> The expression for checking which lcore is enabled for 0-7
> was wrong (missing case for 6).
>
> Link: https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/cpp/1179/
>
> Fixes: b0209034f2bb ("test/eal: check number of cores before running
> subtests")
> Cc: msant...@redhat.com
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
Just wondering would it not be better/safer to put in an actual loop check
here?
However, I'm also ok with keeping the fix as-is, so:
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
> index d37d6b8627..e32f83d3c8 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
> @@ -677,8 +677,8 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
>
> if (rte_lcore_is_enabled(0) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(1) &&
> rte_lcore_is_enabled(2) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(3) &&
> - rte_lcore_is_enabled(3) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(5) &&
> - rte_lcore_is_enabled(4) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(7) &&
> + rte_lcore_is_enabled(4) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(5) &&
> + rte_lcore_is_enabled(6) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(7) &&
> launch_proc(argv29) != 0) {
> printf("Error - "
> "process did not run ok with valid corelist value\n");
> --
> 2.45.2
>
