[dpdk-stable] 回复: [PATCH v2 2/4] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp

[Feifei Wang]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> 发送时间: 2020年8月27日 4:52
> 收件人: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2 at arm.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Olivier
> Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
> 抄送: dev at dpdk.org; nd <nd at arm.com>; Feifei Wang
> <Feifei.Wang2 at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> 主题: RE: [PATCH v2 2/4] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > When using memcmp function to check data, the third param should be
> > the size of all elements, rather than the number of the elements.
> >
> > Fixes: a9fe152363e2 ("test/ring: add custom element size functional
> > tests")
> > Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com
> > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2 at arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang at arm.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test/test_ring.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_ring.c b/app/test/test_ring.c index
> > 0ae97d341..c508a13a9 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_ring.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_ring.c
> > @@ -444,7 +444,12 @@ test_ring_burst_bulk_tests1(unsigned int test_idx)
> >  			TEST_RING_VERIFY(rte_ring_empty(r));
> >
> >  			/* check data */
> > -			TEST_RING_VERIFY(memcmp(src, dst, rsz) == 0);
> > +			if (esize[i] == -1) {
> > +				TEST_RING_VERIFY(memcmp(src, dst,
> > +					rsz * sizeof(void *)) == 0);
> > +			} else
> > +				TEST_RING_VERIFY(memcmp(src, dst,
> > +					rsz * esize[i]) == 0);
> Can you implement a function similar to 'test_ring_mem_init' to do this
> comparison?
Ok, the new function named 'test_ring_mem_cmp' will be added.
> 
> >  		}
> >
> >  		/* Free memory before test completed */ @@ -538,9 +543,11
> @@
> > test_ring_burst_bulk_tests2(unsigned int test_idx)
> >  		cur_dst = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_dst, esize[i], MAX_BULK);
> >
> >  		/* check data */
> > -		if (memcmp(src, dst, cur_dst - dst)) {
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src, cur_src - src);
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst, cur_dst - dst);
> > +		if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst))) {
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> I do not think, this change and the rest below are bug fixes. Can you please
> separate them into another commit?
Actually, in the original code, 'memcmp' wants to check  all bytes and ' rte_hexdump ' wants to print all bytes. 
However, 'cur_dst - dst' and 'cur_src - src' is the number of all elements rather the bytes of all elements.
As a result, we need to correct it and make them check all bytes of the ring.
> 
> >  			printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> >  			goto fail;
> >  		}
> > @@ -614,9 +621,11 @@ test_ring_burst_bulk_tests3(unsigned int test_idx)
> >  		}
> >
> >  		/* check data */
> > -		if (memcmp(src, dst, cur_dst - dst)) {
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src, cur_src - src);
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst, cur_dst - dst);
> > +		if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst))) {
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> >  			printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> >  			goto fail;
> >  		}
> > @@ -747,9 +756,11 @@ test_ring_burst_bulk_tests4(unsigned int test_idx)
> >  			goto fail;
> >
> >  		/* check data */
> > -		if (memcmp(src, dst, cur_dst - dst)) {
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src, cur_src - src);
> > -			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst, cur_dst - dst);
> > +		if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst))) {
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > +			rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > +					RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> >  			printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> >  			goto fail;
> >  		}
> > --
> > 2.17.1