Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

great, thanks! I'm just adding restriction when odp_pmr_match_set_create() returns an error if PMRs are on different layers. As I see the function has to return PMR number that can be created, but AFIU it returns number less then requested only in case when platform doesn't have enough resources

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

> On 15-Jul-2015, at 7:58 pm, Ivan Khoronzhuk > wrote: > > Bala, > > . > >> On 15.07.15 12:25, Bala Manoharan wrote: > . >> >> >>It's only a proposition to add. >>You can add this as separate test. I just want to show that current test >>is not enough to test this primi

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

Bala, . On 15.07.15 12:25, Bala Manoharan wrote: . It's only a proposition to add. You can add this as separate test. I just want to show that current test is not enough to test this primitive. The current validation suite is just used to test the acceptance of differ

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

On 15 July 2015 at 14:49, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > Bala, > > On 15.07.15 11:31, Bala Manoharan wrote: > >> Hi Ivan, >> >> Comments Inline... >> >> On 15 July 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk > > wrote: >> >> It's simple improvement is intended to open eyes on

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

Bala, On 15.07.15 11:31, Bala Manoharan wrote: Hi Ivan, Comments Inline... On 15 July 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org>> wrote: It's simple improvement is intended to open eyes on possible hidden issues when a packet can be lost (or sent to def CoS)

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

Hi Ivan, Comments Inline... On 15 July 2015 at 02:48, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > It's simple improvement is intended to open eyes on possible > hidden issues when a packet can be lost (or sent to def CoS) > while matching one of the rules of first PMR match set, but > intendent to second PMR matc

[lng-odp] [RFC] [Patch] validation: classification: improve pmr set check test

It's simple improvement is intended to open eyes on possible hidden issues when a packet can be lost (or sent to def CoS) while matching one of the rules of first PMR match set, but intendent to second PMR match set. To correctly check, the new dst CoS should be used, but for simplicity I used only