Hi Shally
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shally Verma [mailto:shal...@marvell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:04 AM
> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>; Trahe, Fiona
> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trybula, ArturX <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: fix reliance on integer
> endianness
>
> HI Tomasz
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:18 PM
> > To: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Shally Verma
> > <shal...@marvell.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Trybula, ArturX <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [EXT] RE: [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: fix reliance on
> > integer endianness
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi Fiona,
> >
> > Outlook issue :D , so once again
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Trahe, Fiona
> > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 4:06 PM
> > > To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > > shal...@marvell.com; sta...@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Trybula, ArturX
> > > <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: fix reliance on integer
> > > endianness
> > >
> > > HI Tomasz,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jozwiak, TomaszX
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:26 PM
> > > > To: dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Jozwiak,
> > > > TomaszX <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>; shal...@marvell.com;
> > > > sta...@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: fix reliance on integer
> > > > endianness
> > > >
> > > > This patch fixes coverity issue:
> > > > Reliance on integer endianness (INCOMPATIBLE_CAST) in
> > > parse_window_sz
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > Coverity issue: 328524
> > > > Fixes: e0b6287c035d ("app/compress-perf: add parser")
> > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Jozwiak <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > b/app/test-compress- perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c index
> > > > 2fb6fb4..56ca580 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > @@ -364,13 +364,15 @@ parse_max_num_sgl_segs(struct
> > > comp_test_data
> > > > *test_data, const char *arg) static int parse_window_sz(struct
> > > > comp_test_data *test_data, const char *arg) {
> > > > - int ret = parse_uint16_t((uint16_t *)&test_data->window_sz,
> > > > arg);
> > > > + uint16_t tmp;
> > > > + int ret = parse_uint16_t(&tmp, arg);
> > > >
> > > > if (ret) {
> > > > RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Failed to parse window size\n");
> > > > return -1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + test_data->window_sz = (int)tmp;
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > [Fiona] I expect this fixes this coverity issue - but will it result in
> > > another
> one?
> > > window_sz on the xform is uint8_t - so this int will get truncated
> > > later, and there's no cast done at that point.
> > > Would it be better to add a new parse_uint8_t fn and change
> > > test-data-
> > > >window_sz to a unit8_t?
> > > Or add that cast?
> > [Tomek] I measn it's ok. There's a check inside
> > comp_perf_check_capabilities function.
> > If the value from test_data->window_sz > cap->window_size we have a
> fail.
> > Also during parsing there's a check is value from command line between
> > 0 and UINT16_MAX, so in my opinion all cases are tested. The point is
> > there's only one place where we're parsing uint8_t value.
> > parse_uint8_t function will be especially for that.
> [Shally] What is window_sz in test data ?is it base 2 log of (actual window
> length) or actual window length in bytes? lib spec mention this as struct
> rte_param_log2_range, so If test window size is actual window length in
> bytes then I assume test perf should check for test_data->window_sz > 2
> pow cap->window_size but that doesn't look like the case.
> So if it is log value, then coding wise typecasting here doesn't look right.
> Though it add need for extra function to parse_uint8, but that looks like
> cleaner approach to use.
[Tomek] I mean it's log 2 (please take a look at help usage function in
comp_perf_options_parse.c:37
" --window-sz N: base two log value of compression window size\n"
" (e.g.: 15 => 32k, default: max supported by
PMD)\n"
I mean it's ok, still. We have many types in command line and can be much more
in the future. The idea is to parse them into a sort of common range value
first ( it should be max range for all digital command line options - in our
case there's uint16 or uint32_t) even if it's shorter like uint8_t or etc. We
store these values in comp_test_data structure first. Next we check the ranges
each of them. In case of window_sz this test is in comp_perf_check_capabilities
function. That approach reduce a set of parsing functions we needed. Of course
we can create separate parsing function for each of command line type value,
but is this really needed ? :D
Please let me know your thoughts - if this new parsing function will clear the
code - I'll add this in v2
