[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters

[Tom Rix]

On 10/26/20 9:29 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:06 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>> akhil.goyal at nxp.com
>> Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Adding explicit check in ut that the stats counters have the expect
>>> values. Was missing for coverage.
>> missing from coverage
>>
>> ?
> This was causing code coverage gap. 

Add 'code ' to make the context better.

>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>
>>> Acked-by: Aidan Goddard <aidan.goddard at accelercomm.com>
>>> Acked-by: Dave Burley <dave.burley at accelercomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index 3554a77..b62848e 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -4840,6 +4840,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  			(double)(time_st.deq_max_time * 1000000) /
>>>  			rte_get_tsc_hz());
>>>
>>> +	struct rte_bbdev_stats stats = {0};
>> Other calls to get_bbdev_queue_stats do not initialize stats and likely should
>>> +	get_bbdev_queue_stats(ad->dev_id, queue_id, &stats);
>> Should check the return here.
>>> +	if (op_type != RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) {
>> This logic seems off.
>>
>> Do you mean to check only enc stats with an enc op ?
>>
>> Similar for dec.
> No that is intentional. That check would not be relavent for the LDPC_DEC tests as this may run more operations for the sake of HARQ preloading/retrieve. 
ok
>
>>> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueued_count !=
>> num_to_process,
>>> +				"Mismatch in enqueue count %10"PRIu64"
>> %d",
>>> +				stats.enqueued_count, num_to_process);
>>> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeued_count !=
>> num_to_process,
>>> +				"Mismatch in dequeue count %10"PRIu64"
>> %d",
>>> +				stats.dequeued_count, num_to_process);
>>> +	}
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueue_err_count != 0,
>>> +			"Enqueue count Error %10"PRIu64"",
>>> +			stats.enqueue_err_count);
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeue_err_count != 0,
>>> +			"Dequeue count Error (%10"PRIu64"",
>>> +			stats.dequeue_err_count);
>>> +
>>>  	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>>  #endif
>>>  }