On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:41:55AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:49:47PM +0530, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:19:51AM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh [mailto:pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:27 PM > > > > To: jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com; Richardson, Bruce > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry > > > > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>; > > > > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; nipun.gu...@nxp.com; Ma, Liang J > > > > <liang.j...@intel.com> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com> > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] event/octeontx: move eventdev octeontx > > > > test > > > > to driver > > > > > > > > Move octeontx eventdev specific test (test_eventdev_octeontx.c) to > > > > driver/event/octeontx. > > > > > > <snip patch content> > > > > > > Replying to 1st patch, as no cover letter; > > > > > > Summary of patchset: > > > - Move tests for a specific Eventdev PMD into the PMD dir: > > > drivers/event/x/x_selftest.c > > > - Enable self tests to run when passed the vdev arg "self-test=1" > > > > > > > > > A few comments on this change; > > > > > > 1) We should not lose the capability to run tests as part of the existing > > > unit testing infrastructure. We should not fragment the testing tool - > > > requiring multiple binaries to test a single component. > > > > > > From discussion on #IRC, it seems reasonable to call rte_eal_vdev_init() > > > with "self-test=1" from the test/test/ code, and then we can continue to > > > use the existing test infrastructure despite that the actual tests are > > > now part of each PMD. > > > > > > 2) We should not copy/paste TEST_ASSERT macros into new test files. > > > Abstracting the TEST_ASSERT and other macros out to a header file would > > > solve this duplication. > > > > > > > I initially thought of abstracting the macros but couldnt find a suitable > > file > > to place them in we have two options here, one is to use CFLAGS and include > > test.h directly (dirty) or have rte_assert/test in eal/common/inlcude. > > > > Thoughts? > > > If other device types, e.g. ethdev or cryptodev, also take the approach of > having a self_test API (something I think would be a good thing, and I > actually hacked together when working on the i40e rx and tx code), I > think we should look to have an rte_test.h header file for such macros > to avoid duplication. > At this point, moving them to an EAL include may not be worth it for > just eventdev. >
I think atleast having a basic version of rte_test.h (macros used by test_event_octeontx) would be good rather than taking a hacky path. Later on more stuff could be added when other devices make use of it. > /Bruce > Thanks, Pavan.
