[ovs-dev] [v9 07/12] test/sytem-dpdk: Add unit test for mfex autovalidator

Eelco Chaudron echaudro at redhat.com
Tue Jul 13 12:20:04 UTC 2021



On 13 Jul 2021, at 11:01, Amber, Kumar wrote:

> Hi Eelco,
>
> Pls ignore the comments on check-patch error for python query I have fixed all of them will be there in v11.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Amber, Kumar
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:10 PM
>> To: 'Eelco Chaudron' <echaudro at redhat.com>
>> Cc: ovs-dev at openvswitch.org; fbl at sysclose.org; i.maximets at ovn.org; Van
>> Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; Ferriter, Cian
>> <Cian.Ferriter at intel.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [v9 07/12] test/sytem-dpdk: Add unit test for mfex autovalidator
>>
>> Hi Eelco,
>>
>> Thanks I didn’t knew about his file .
>> I will fix them
>>

<Snip>

>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/system-dpdk.at b/tests/system-dpdk.at index
>>>> 802895488..55fd7baa3 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/system-dpdk.at
>>>> +++ b/tests/system-dpdk.at
>>>> @@ -232,3 +232,52 @@ OVS_VSWITCHD_STOP(["\@does not exist. The
>> Open
>>> vSwitch kernel module is probably
>>>>  \@EAL: No free hugepages reported in hugepages-1048576kB at d"])
>>>> AT_CLEANUP  dnl
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------
>>>> +
>>>> +dnl
>>>> +-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> +-------
>>>> +dnl Add standard DPDK PHY port
>>>> +AT_SETUP([OVS-DPDK - MFEX Autovalidator])
>>>
>>> What happened to this conversation?
>>>
>>> “””
>>>> I think we should also skip these tests if we do not have a machine
>>>> that has AVX512. Just to make sure we do not generate an OK where we
>>>> are not even testing the AVX512 functions.
>>>>
>>>> Actually we should not what if someone wants to write a new mfex
>>>> version without AVX but just SIMD or some other way than we are
>>>> probably blocking the testing
>>>
>>>  Good catch! I think we should run the test if other implementations
>>> are  available, else skip (except for auto, scalar, and study as they
>>> are  always available).
>>> “””
>>
>> Do we need it with the new patch anyway auto-validator will not run if there is
>> no other implementations And adding the skip is complicated and nasty way I
>> can look at it at a cleaner way maybe later but currently I don’t feel its necessary
>> thoughts?

The problem is that it will return a test OK and we need it to be marked as skipped. Guess the check can be as simple as “ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/miniflow-parser-get | sed 1,4d | grep -v "not available”” or something similar depending on the final output of the get command.



More information about the dev mailing list