Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Hunt, David > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:10 PM > To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: Parthasarathy, JananeeX M <jananeex.m.parthasara...@intel.com>; > dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: enhance power manager unit > tests > > > On 24/4/2018 12:23 PM, Pattan, Reshma wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Richardson, Bruce > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:59 AM > >> To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >> Cc: Parthasarathy, JananeeX M <jananeex.m.parthasara...@intel.com>; > >> dev@dpdk.org; Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Hunt, David > >> <david.h...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: enhance power manager > >> unit tests > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:04:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 11/04/2018 16:14, Reshma Pattan: > >>>> Unit Testcases are added for power_acpi_cpu_freq, > power_kvm_vm_test > >>>> to improve coverage > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jananee Parthasarathy > >>>> <jananeex.m.parthasara...@intel.com> > >>>> Acked-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com> > >>> Applied, thanks > >>> > >> Sadly, this patch seems to break shared library builds. If you try > >> doing "make test-build" with shared libraries on it will fail, or if > >> you do a meson build using shared libraries you will get the same result. > >> > >> The root cause is that the function guest_channel_host_connect() is a > >> private function and so is not listed in the shared library map file, > >> preventing the test app from linking. > >> > > Any action from my side required? Let me know. > > Reshma, > Looking at this, I think this particular unit test needs to be removed. > The > way it is at the moment, it's "faking" the connect, then any commands that > are sent to the dummy host are only really to test to see if the API breaks, > which is going to be captured by compilation tests anyway. I don't see the > value of this unit test unless you have the full host setup underneath is, in > which case it's no longer a unit test. > Also, we don't want to make these functions public, as they are only of use to > the library internally, and there is no use for them publicly (unless a guest > wants to fake a connection to a non-existent host). > > What do you think?
Fine, we are reverting the changes and will send the patch soon. Thanks, Reshma
