On 11/02/2015 16:10, Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of EXT Maxim
Uvarov
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 2:44 PM
To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2] validation: pktio: test
odp_pktio_print()
On 11/02/2015 15:16, Matias Elo wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matias Elo <matias....@nokia.com>
---
v2:
- No need for a separate odp_pktio_print() test (Maxim Uvarov)
test/validation/pktio/pktio.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/test/validation/pktio/pktio.c b/test/validation/pktio/pktio.c
index 6320b77..ff62b3c 100644
--- a/test/validation/pktio/pktio.c
+++ b/test/validation/pktio/pktio.c
@@ -268,6 +268,10 @@ static odp_pktio_t create_pktio(int iface_idx,
odp_pktio_input_mode_t mode)
CU_ASSERT(pktio != ODP_PKTIO_INVALID);
CU_ASSERT(odp_pktio_to_u64(pktio) !=
odp_pktio_to_u64(ODP_PKTIO_INVALID));
+ /* Print pktio debug info and test that the odp_pktio_print() function
+ * is implemented. */
+ if (pktio != ODP_PKTIO_INVALID)
+ odp_pktio_print(pktio);
return pktio;
}
Remove that if check. You already have 2 lines above :)
Maxim.
The reasoning for the if() is that the previous CU_ASSERTS() won't break
function execution. odp_pktio_print() would be called even if they fail.
-Matias
Yea, it looks like it's better to change it to CU_ASSERT_FATAL() and
remove that _FATAL from all other places.
But that can be separate patch to simplify pktio tests.
Maxim.
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
