[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] eal: fix core number validation

[David Marchand]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:15 PM Hari Kumar Vemula <
hari.kumarx.vemula at intel.com> wrote:

>
> diff --git a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> index 2acab9d69..fc45bf953 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #include <sys/file.h>
>  #include <limits.h>
>
> +#include <rte_per_lcore.h>
>  #include <rte_debug.h>
>  #include <rte_string_fns.h>
>
> @@ -513,6 +514,16 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
>         const char *argv25[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
>                                  "-n", "3", "--lcores",
>                                  "0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7"};
>
+       /* core number is negative value */
> +       const char * const argv26[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> +                               "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5" };
> +       const char * const argv27[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> +                               "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5-7" };
>

I did not see this before, but you fixed the "-l" eal option, not
"--lcores" option.
So those unit tests are wrong.



> +       /* core number is maximum value */
> +       const char * const argv28[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> +                               "-n", "3", "--lcores", "RTE_MAX_LCORE+1" };
> +       const char * const argv29[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> +                               "-n", "3", "--lcores",
> "1-(RTE_MAX_LCORE+1)" };
>
>         if (launch_proc(argv2) != 0) {
>                 printf("Error - "
>

Passing "RTE_MAX_LCORE+1" is indeed wrong (be it with "-l" or "--lcores"
options), but I would still prefer to check the formatted value of
RTE_MAX_LCORE (no need for that +1, btw).
So please, in next version, test against "-l", RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE) and
"-l", "1-" RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE).


Thanks.

-- 
David Marchand