On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:47:31AM +0530, Pavan Nikhilesh wrote:
> Modify test_eventdev_octeontx to be standalone selftest independent of
> test framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com>
> ---
> drivers/event/octeontx/octeontx_evdev_selftest.c | 427
> +++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 234 insertions(+), 193 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/event/octeontx/octeontx_evdev_selftest.c
> b/drivers/event/octeontx/octeontx_evdev_selftest.c
> index 8fddb4fd2..3877bca4a 100644
> --- a/drivers/event/octeontx/octeontx_evdev_selftest.c
> +++ b/drivers/event/octeontx/octeontx_evdev_selftest.c
> @@ -46,12 +46,21 @@
> #include <rte_per_lcore.h>
> #include <rte_random.h>
> #include <rte_bus_vdev.h>
> +#include <rte_test.h>
>
> -#include "test.h"
> +#include "ssovf_evdev.h"
>
> #define NUM_PACKETS (1 << 18)
> #define MAX_EVENTS (16 * 1024)
>
> +#define OCTEONTX_TEST_RUN(setup, teardown, test) \
> + octeontx_test_run(setup, teardown, test, #test)
> +
> +static int total;
> +static int passed;
> +static int failed;
> +static int unsupported;
> +
> static int evdev;
> static struct rte_mempool *eventdev_test_mempool;
>
> @@ -79,11 +88,11 @@ static inline int
> seqn_list_update(int val)
> {
> if (seqn_list_index >= NUM_PACKETS)
> - return TEST_FAILED;
> + return -1;
>
> seqn_list[seqn_list_index++] = val;
> rte_smp_wmb();
> - return TEST_SUCCESS;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static inline int
> @@ -93,11 +102,11 @@ seqn_list_check(int limit)
>
> for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
> if (seqn_list[i] != i) {
> - printf("Seqn mismatch %d %d\n", seqn_list[i], i);
> - return TEST_FAILED;
> + ssovf_log_dbg("Seqn mismatch %d %d", seqn_list[i], i);
> + return -1;
> }
> }
> - return TEST_SUCCESS;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> struct test_core_param {
> @@ -114,20 +123,21 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
>
> evdev = rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(eventdev_name);
> if (evdev < 0) {
> - printf("%d: Eventdev %s not found - creating.\n",
> + ssovf_log_dbg("%d: Eventdev %s not found - creating.",
> __LINE__, eventdev_name);
> if (rte_vdev_init(eventdev_name, NULL) < 0) {
> - printf("Error creating eventdev %s\n", eventdev_name);
> - return TEST_FAILED;
> + ssovf_log_dbg("Error creating eventdev %s",
> + eventdev_name);
> + return -1;
> }
> evdev = rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(eventdev_name);
> if (evdev < 0) {
> - printf("Error finding newly created eventdev\n");
> - return TEST_FAILED;
> + ssovf_log_dbg("Error finding newly created eventdev");
> + return -1;
> }
> }
>
> - return TEST_SUCCESS;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static void
> @@ -177,31 +187,34 @@ _eventdev_setup(int mode)
> 512, /* Use very small mbufs */
> rte_socket_id());
> if (!eventdev_test_mempool) {
> - printf("ERROR creating mempool\n");
> - return TEST_FAILED;
> + ssovf_log_dbg("ERROR creating mempool");
> + return -1;
> }
>
> ret = rte_event_dev_info_get(evdev, &info);
> - TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret, "Failed to get event dev info");
> - TEST_ASSERT(info.max_num_events >= (int32_t)MAX_EVENTS,
> - "max_num_events=%d < max_events=%d",
> - info.max_num_events, MAX_EVENTS);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(ret, "Failed to get event dev info");
> + if (!(info.max_num_events >= (int32_t)MAX_EVENTS)) {
> + ssovf_log_dbg("ERROR max_num_events=%d < max_events=%d",
> + info.max_num_events, MAX_EVENTS);
> + return -1;
> + }
>
I'm not sure how any of this is particularly adventageous. You've replaced two
ASSERTION macros with one and an additional conditional. The assert macros are
just a flexible as their were previously (which is to say, not overly so). So
i'm not sure what the advantage of renaming them is.
Neil
