[dpdk-dev,v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
Checks
Commit Message
+ while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
+ rte_delay_ms(10);
Why you don't replace "2" and "10" with macro?
-----Original Message-----
From: Yang, Qiming
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:24 AM
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the requested time, but may be called a period of time afterwards which can not be calculated. In order to ensure test alarm running success, this patch added the delay time before check the flag.
Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
---
v2 changes:
* fixed coding style problems
v3 changes:
* replaced the numeric by macro
---
---
test/test/test_alarm.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
printf("Error, cancelling head-of-list leads to premature callback\n");
return -1;
}
- rte_delay_ms(10);
+
+ while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
+ rte_delay_ms(10);
+
if (flag != 2) {
printf("Error - expected callback not called\n");
rte_eal_alarm_cancel(test_remove_in_callback, (void *)-1); @@ -212,7 +217,7 @@ test_alarm(void)
printf("fail to set alarm callback\n");
return -1;
}
- while (flag == 0 && count ++ < 6)
+ while (flag == 0 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
rte_delay_ms(RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD);
if (flag == 0){
--
2.7.4
Comments
Hi, Mark
"2" and "10" is the special number in this test case, not a general number.
/* Test that we cannot cancel an alarm from within the callback itself
* Also test that we can cancel head-of-line callbacks ok.*/
flag = 0;
recursive_error = 0;
rte_eal_alarm_set(10 * US_PER_MS, test_remove_in_callback, (void *)1);
rte_eal_alarm_set(20 * US_PER_MS, test_remove_in_callback, (void *)2);
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chen, Jing D
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 4:29 PM
> To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
>
>
> + while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> + rte_delay_ms(10);
>
> Why you don't replace "2" and "10" with macro?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang, Qiming
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:24 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>;
> Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
>
> Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in
> rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the requested time,
> but may be called a period of time afterwards which can not be calculated. In
> order to ensure test alarm running success, this patch added the delay time
> before check the flag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> ---
> v2 changes:
> * fixed coding style problems
> v3 changes:
> * replaced the numeric by macro
> ---
> ---
> test/test/test_alarm.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/test/test/test_alarm.c b/test/test/test_alarm.c index
> ecb2f6d..40f55b5 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_alarm.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_alarm.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
>
> #define RTE_TEST_ALARM_TIMEOUT 10 /* ms */
> #define RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD 3 /* ms */
> +#define RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT 20
>
> static volatile int flag;
>
> @@ -96,6 +97,7 @@ static int
> test_multi_alarms(void)
> {
> int rm_count = 0;
> + int count = 0;
> cb_count.cnt = 0;
>
> printf("Expect 6 callbacks in order...\n"); @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@
> test_multi_alarms(void)
> printf("Error, cancelling head-of-list leads to premature
> callback\n");
> return -1;
> }
> - rte_delay_ms(10);
> +
> + while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> + rte_delay_ms(10);
> +
> if (flag != 2) {
> printf("Error - expected callback not called\n");
> rte_eal_alarm_cancel(test_remove_in_callback, (void *)-1);
> @@ -212,7 +217,7 @@ test_alarm(void)
> printf("fail to set alarm callback\n");
> return -1;
> }
> - while (flag == 0 && count ++ < 6)
> + while (flag == 0 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> rte_delay_ms(RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD);
>
> if (flag == 0){
> --
> 2.7.4
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yang, Qiming
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:24 AM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> > <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
> >
> > Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in
> > rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the
> > requested time, but may be called a period of time afterwards which
> > can not be calculated. In order to ensure test alarm running success,
> > this patch added the delay time before check the flag.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2 changes:
> > * fixed coding style problems
> > v3 changes:
> > * replaced the numeric by macro
> > ---
> > ---
> > test/test/test_alarm.c | 9 +++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/test/test_alarm.c b/test/test/test_alarm.c index
> > ecb2f6d..40f55b5 100644
> > --- a/test/test/test_alarm.c
> > +++ b/test/test/test_alarm.c
> > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
> >
> > #define RTE_TEST_ALARM_TIMEOUT 10 /* ms */
> > #define RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD 3 /* ms */
> > +#define RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT 20
> >
> > static volatile int flag;
> >
> > @@ -96,6 +97,7 @@ static int
> > test_multi_alarms(void)
> > {
> > int rm_count = 0;
> > + int count = 0;
> > cb_count.cnt = 0;
> >
> > printf("Expect 6 callbacks in order...\n"); @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@
> > test_multi_alarms(void)
> > printf("Error, cancelling head-of-list leads to premature
> > callback\n");
> > return -1;
> > }
> > - rte_delay_ms(10);
> > +
> > + while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> > + rte_delay_ms(10);
> > +
> > if (flag != 2) {
> > printf("Error - expected callback not called\n");
> > rte_eal_alarm_cancel(test_remove_in_callback, (void *)-1);
> @@
> > -212,7 +217,7 @@ test_alarm(void)
> > printf("fail to set alarm callback\n");
> > return -1;
> > }
> > - while (flag == 0 && count ++ < 6)
> > + while (flag == 0 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> > rte_delay_ms(RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD);
> >
> > if (flag == 0){
> > --
> > 2.7.4
Acked-by : Jing Chen <jing.d.chen@intel.com>
Hi, Thomas
Can this patch be applied?
Qiming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chen, Jing D
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:31 AM
> To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
>
>
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yang, Qiming
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:24 AM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> > > <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v3] test: add delay time in test alarm
> > >
> > > Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in
> > > rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the
> > > requested time, but may be called a period of time afterwards which
> > > can not be calculated. In order to ensure test alarm running
> > > success, this patch added the delay time before check the flag.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2 changes:
> > > * fixed coding style problems
> > > v3 changes:
> > > * replaced the numeric by macro
> > > ---
> > > ---
> > > test/test/test_alarm.c | 9 +++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/test/test/test_alarm.c b/test/test/test_alarm.c index
> > > ecb2f6d..40f55b5 100644
> > > --- a/test/test/test_alarm.c
> > > +++ b/test/test/test_alarm.c
> > > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
> > >
> > > #define RTE_TEST_ALARM_TIMEOUT 10 /* ms */
> > > #define RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD 3 /* ms */
> > > +#define RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT 20
> > >
> > > static volatile int flag;
> > >
> > > @@ -96,6 +97,7 @@ static int
> > > test_multi_alarms(void)
> > > {
> > > int rm_count = 0;
> > > + int count = 0;
> > > cb_count.cnt = 0;
> > >
> > > printf("Expect 6 callbacks in order...\n"); @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@
> > > test_multi_alarms(void)
> > > printf("Error, cancelling head-of-list leads to premature
> > > callback\n");
> > > return -1;
> > > }
> > > - rte_delay_ms(10);
> > > +
> > > + while (flag != 2 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> > > + rte_delay_ms(10);
> > > +
> > > if (flag != 2) {
> > > printf("Error - expected callback not called\n");
> > > rte_eal_alarm_cancel(test_remove_in_callback, (void *)-1);
> > @@
> > > -212,7 +217,7 @@ test_alarm(void)
> > > printf("fail to set alarm callback\n");
> > > return -1;
> > > }
> > > - while (flag == 0 && count ++ < 6)
> > > + while (flag == 0 && count++ < RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT)
> > > rte_delay_ms(RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD);
> > >
> > > if (flag == 0){
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
>
> Acked-by : Jing Chen <jing.d.chen@intel.com>
> > > Because accuracy of timing to the microsecond is not guaranteed in
> > > rte_eal_alarm_set, this function will not be called before the
> > > requested time, but may be called a period of time afterwards which
> > > can not be calculated. In order to ensure test alarm running success,
> > > this patch added the delay time before check the flag.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
>
> Acked-by : Jing Chen <jing.d.chen@intel.com>
Applied, thanks
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
#define RTE_TEST_ALARM_TIMEOUT 10 /* ms */
#define RTE_TEST_CHECK_PERIOD 3 /* ms */
+#define RTE_TEST_MAX_REPEAT 20
static volatile int flag;
@@ -96,6 +97,7 @@ static int
test_multi_alarms(void)
{
int rm_count = 0;
+ int count = 0;
cb_count.cnt = 0;
printf("Expect 6 callbacks in order...\n"); @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@ test_multi_alarms(void)