On 01/09/2021 17:32, Bruce Richardson wrote:
For each dmadev instance, perform some basic copy tests to validate that
functionality.
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>
---
app/test/test_dmadev.c | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 174 insertions(+)
<snip>
+
+static int
+test_enqueue_copies(int dev_id, uint16_t vchan)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+ uint16_t id;
+
+ /* test doing a single copy */
+ do {
+ struct rte_mbuf *src, *dst;
+ char *src_data, *dst_data;
+
+ src = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
+ dst = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
+ src_data = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(src, char *);
+ dst_data = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(dst, char *);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < COPY_LEN; i++)
+ src_data[i] = rte_rand() & 0xFF;
+
+ id = rte_dmadev_copy(dev_id, vchan, src->buf_iova +
src->data_off,
+ dst->buf_iova + dst->data_off, COPY_LEN,
RTE_DMA_OP_FLAG_SUBMIT);
Could use the rte_mbuf APIs to get the struct members here and
throughout the other tests in this set.
No strong opinion on this either way.
+ if (id != id_count) {
+ PRINT_ERR("Error with rte_dmadev_copy, got %u, expected
%u\n",
+ id, id_count);
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ /* give time for copy to finish, then check it was done */
+ await_hw(dev_id, vchan);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < COPY_LEN; i++) {
+ if (dst_data[i] != src_data[i]) {
+ PRINT_ERR("Data mismatch at char %u [Got %02x not
%02x]\n", i,
+ dst_data[i], src_data[i]);
+ rte_dmadev_dump(dev_id, stderr);
+ return -1;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* now check completion works */
+ if (rte_dmadev_completed(dev_id, vchan, 1, &id, NULL) != 1) {
+ PRINT_ERR("Error with rte_dmadev_completed\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+ if (id != id_count) {
+ PRINT_ERR("Error:incorrect job id received, %u [expected
%u]\n",
+ id, id_count);
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ rte_pktmbuf_free(src);
+ rte_pktmbuf_free(dst);
+
+ /* now check completion works */
This comment doesn't match with the check being done.
+ if (rte_dmadev_completed(dev_id, 0, 1, NULL, NULL) != 0) {
+ PRINT_ERR("Error with rte_dmadev_completed in empty
check\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+ id_count++;
+
+ } while (0);
+
<snip>
Apart from minor comments above, LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Kevin Laatz <[email protected]>
