[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2 1/5] test/bpf: fix few small issues
Konstantin Ananyev
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed May 27 16:16:49 CEST 2020
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.
Fixes: a9de470cc7c0 ("test: move to app directory")
Cc: stable at dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf.c | 41 +++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 26 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;
-
- 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));
+ 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));
+ }
}
rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
--
2.17.1
More information about the stable
mailing list