[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/bbdev: remove improper WARNING printouts

[De Lara Guarch, Pablo]

Hi Kamil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of KamilX Chalupnik
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:26 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Mokhtar, Amr <amr.mokhtar at intel.com>; Chalupnik, KamilX
> <kamilx.chalupnik at intel.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/bbdev: remove improper WARNING
> printouts
> 
> Improper WARNING printouts in BBDev Test Application removed
> 
> Signed-off-by: KamilX Chalupnik <kamilx.chalupnik at intel.com>
> 
> v2:
> - apply patch failure fixed
> 
> ---
>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c   |  2 +-
>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_vector.c | 12 ++++++------
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-
> bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index 00f3b08..84a5393 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ check_dev_cap(const struct rte_bbdev_info *dev_info)
>  					!(cap->capability_flags &
>  					RTE_BBDEV_TURBO_SOFT_OUTPUT)) {
>  				printf(
> -					"WARNING: Device \"%s\" does not
> support soft output - soft output flags will be ignored.\n",
> +					"INFO: Device \"%s\" does not support
> soft output - soft output
> +flags will be ignored.\n",

I think, instead of using "printf", you should use RTE_LOG, ideally with a dynamic log type,
so a user can change the level and decide which messages to show (like what was done
in TestPMD, with TESTPMD_LOG).

Thanks,
Pablo