On 09/07/2020 00:04, Lukasz Wojciechowski wrote:
>
> W dniu 12.06.2020 o 14:09, Kevin Traynor pisze:
>> When using --lcores option, CPU_SETSIZE allows a range of
>> 0-1023. Check it is not being exceeded.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
>> index 4ee809e3d..044cc1c59 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c
>> @@ -528,4 +528,7 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
>> "--lcores",
>> "0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7"};
>> + /* check an invalid cpu value >= CPU_SETSIZE */
>> + const char * const argv30[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
>> + "--lcores", "3@1024" };
>>
> The proper cpu values are in range 0-CPU_SETSIZE, but the CPU_SETSIZE is
> not always equal to 1024 (currently it is on Linux).
> Check lib/librte_eal/windows/include/sched.h:17 :
>
> #ifndef CPU_SETSIZE
> #define CPU_SETSIZE RTE_MAX_LCORE
> #endif
>
> so to make your patch better, you can use CPU_SETSIZE value directly:
>
> const char * const argv30[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag, "--lcores", "3@"
> RTE_STR(CPU_SETSIZE) };
>
Thanks Lukasz. You are right, this is better. I just sent a v2.
Kevin.
>
>> if (launch_proc(argv2) != 0) {
>> @@ -577,5 +580,6 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
>> launch_proc(argv24) == 0 || launch_proc(argv25) == 0 ||
>> launch_proc(argv26) == 0 || launch_proc(argv27) == 0 ||
>> - launch_proc(argv28) == 0) {
>> + launch_proc(argv28) == 0 || launch_proc(argv30) == 0) {
>> +
>> printf("Error - "
>> "process ran without error with invalid --lcore flag\n");
>
> Best regards
>
