[dpdk-stable] patch 'test/bpf: fix few small issues' has been queued to stable release 19.11.4

[luca.boccassi at gmail.com]

Hi,

FYI, your patch has been queued to stable release 19.11.4

Note it hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable yet.
It will be pushed if I get no objections before 07/26/20. So please
shout if anyone has objections.

Also note that after the patch there's a diff of the upstream commit vs the
patch applied to the branch. This will indicate if there was any rebasing
needed to apply to the stable branch. If there were code changes for rebasing
(ie: not only metadata diffs), please double check that the rebase was
correctly done.

Thanks.

Luca Boccassi

---
>From 3e457e69b6a0b0b4f7220481aac1766197916253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:16:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] test/bpf: fix few small issues

[ upstream commit 83633ba230761647b5014301c1f98b670d03e375 ]

Address for few small issues:
 - unreachable return statement
 - failed test-case can finish with 'success' status

Also use unified cmp_res() function to check return value.

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
---
 app/test/test_bpf.c | 39 ++++++++++++++-------------------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
index ee534687a..4a61a7d7c 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
@@ -1797,13 +1797,6 @@ test_call1_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func1(arg, &v32, &v64);
 	v64 += v32;
 
-	if (v64 != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v64, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v64, rc, dv, dv, sizeof(*dv));
 }
 
@@ -1934,13 +1927,7 @@ test_call2_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func2(&a, &b);
 	v = a.u64 + a.u32 + b.u16 + b.u8;
 
-	if (v != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
+	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, arg, arg, 0);
 }
 
 static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call2_xsym[] = {
@@ -2429,7 +2416,6 @@ test_call5_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	v = 0;
 
 fail:
-
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, &v, &rc, sizeof(v));
 }
 
@@ -2458,6 +2444,7 @@ static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call5_xsym[] = {
 	},
 };
 
+/* all bpf test cases */
 static const struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 	{
 		.name = "test_store1",
@@ -2738,7 +2725,6 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 	}
 
 	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-
 	rc = rte_bpf_exec(bpf, tbuf);
 	ret = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
 	if (ret != 0) {
@@ -2746,17 +2732,20 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, ret, strerror(ret));
 	}
 
+	/* repeat the same test with jit, when possible */
 	rte_bpf_get_jit(bpf, &jit);
-	if (jit.func == NULL)
-		return 0;
+	if (jit.func != NULL) {
 
-	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-	rc = jit.func(tbuf);
-	rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
-	ret |= rv;
-	if (rv != 0) {
-		printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, error: %d(%s);\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, rv, strerror(ret));
+		tst->prepare(tbuf);
+		rc = jit.func(tbuf);
+		rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
+		ret |= rv;
+		if (rv != 0) {
+			printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, "
+				"error: %d(%s);\n",
+				__func__, __LINE__, tst->name,
+				rv, strerror(ret));
+		}
 	}
 
 	rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
-- 
2.20.1

---
  Diff of the applied patch vs upstream commit (please double-check if non-empty:
---
--- -	2020-07-24 12:53:50.270670479 +0100
+++ 0043-test-bpf-fix-few-small-issues.patch	2020-07-24 12:53:48.255005863 +0100
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
-From 83633ba230761647b5014301c1f98b670d03e375 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From 3e457e69b6a0b0b4f7220481aac1766197916253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
 From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
 Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:16:49 +0100
 Subject: [PATCH] test/bpf: fix few small issues
 
+[ upstream commit 83633ba230761647b5014301c1f98b670d03e375 ]
+
 Address for few small issues:
  - unreachable return statement
  - failed test-case can finish with 'success' status
 
 Also use unified cmp_res() function to check return value.
 
-Cc: stable at dpdk.org
-
 Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
 ---
  app/test/test_bpf.c | 39 ++++++++++++++-------------------------