+ while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
+ rte_delay_ms(10);
Why you don't replace "2" and "10" with macro?
-----Original Message-----
From: Yang, Qiming
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:24 AM
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.c...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>;
Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in
rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the requested time,
but may be called a period of time afterwards which can not be calculated. In
order to ensure test alarm running success, this patch added the delay time
before check the flag.
Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.y...@intel.com>
---
v2 changes:
* fixed coding style problems
v3 changes:
* replaced the numeric by macro
---
---
test/test/test_alarm.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/test/test_alarm.c b/test/test/test_alarm.c index
ecb2f6d..40f55b5 100644
--- a/test/test/test_alarm.c
+++ b/test/test/test_alarm.c
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
#define RTE_TEST_ALARM_TIMEOUT 10 /* ms */
#define RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD 3 /* ms */
+#define RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT 20
static volatile int flag;
@@ -96,6 +97,7 @@ static int
test_multi_alarms(void)
{
int rm_count = 0;
+ int count = 0;
cb_count.cnt = 0;
printf("Expect 6 callbacks in order...\n"); @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@
test_multi_alarms(void)
printf("Error, cancelling head-of-list leads to premature
callback\n");
return -1;
}
- rte_delay_ms(10);
+
+ while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
+ rte_delay_ms(10);
+
if (flag != 2) {
printf("Error - expected callback not called\n");
rte_eal_alarm_cancel(test_remove_in_callback, (void *)-1); @@
-212,7 +217,7 @@ test_alarm(void)
printf("fail to set alarm callback\n");
return -1;
}
- while (flag == 0 && count ++ < 6)
+ while (flag == 0 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
rte_delay_ms(RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD);
if (flag == 0){
--
2.7.4
