Hi Thomas, I sent it few mins back. Can you check and apply
Thanks, Reshma > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:34 PM > To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hunt, David <david.h...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Parthasarathy, JananeeX M > <jananeex.m.parthasara...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: enhance power manager unit > tests > > 24/04/2018 14:51, Pattan, Reshma: > > From: Hunt, David > > > On 24/4/2018 12:23 PM, Pattan, Reshma wrote: > > > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > >> 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. > > Where is the patch? > I will revert it myself. >
