Hi All,
While during scale tests with large numbers of routes, we occasionally hit
a strange issue in our container. The *vpp process became unresponsive*,
after attaching the process to gdb we could see the *vpp_main thread is
stuck on a specific function*. Any pointer to debug such issues would
Oww. Yummy. So ensuring the code coverage delta per-patch is positive
is much less of a pipe dream than I thought! Thanks!
(and now I I have a deja vu of us discussing this exact thing some
time ago and me forgetting Sorry for that - at least now I can
google it ;-)
--a
On 6/18/20, Dave
Coverage runs with gcc can run in parallel. With clang, not so much... CC=gcc
is your friend...
D.
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Behalf Of Andrew Yourtchenko
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Balaji Venkatraman (balajiv)
Cc: Neale Ranns (nranns) ; vpp-dev
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] VPP
Hi Balaji,
Yeah that was what I was thinking, though weekly ain’t good enough - one would
have to run coverage report before and after and ensure it doesn’t drop.
But it’s only one point and it’s also not a given that a code with the api
change/addition contains all the code for that new api
Hi Andrew,
Just a few comments regarding coverage.
We could use the coverage (we currently run on a weekly basis) as baseline and
monitor for incremental increases when a versioning change occurs. If there was
a way to check the UT for the _v2 covers the ‘new/modified’ code and if
possible
Hi,
So to revisit this topic from a different angle. I believe VPP needs something
like the xfrm linux interface [1]. If I understand things correctly this
actually provides what was useful (but more-so) with old ipsec interface
functionality that has been lost. It is also a much cleaner/more
Hi Neale,
> On 18 Jun 2020, at 17:11, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> A couple of questions?
Absolutely! That’s how we improve it! Thanks a lot for the questions ! Replies
inline:
>
> Firstly, about unit testing aka make test. This is the salient passage in
> your
Hi Andrew,
A couple of questions?
Firstly, about unit testing aka make test. This is the salient passage in your
guide:
"foo_message_v2 is tested in "make test" to the same extent as the
foo_message"
IMHO "to the same extent" implies everywhere v1 is used v2 should now be used
in its place.
> On May 11, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 2020, at 9:56 AM, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2020 14:28, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it *really* that big a deal to have a logical interface represent a
>> tunnel mode SA? It actually seems
Resending with the address that is subscribed to the list, as i didn’t notice
my MUA using the wrong one.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)"
> Date: 17 June 2020 at 20:47:51 CEST
> To: vpp-dev
> Cc: Ole Troan , "Vratko Polak -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON
> TECH SRO at
10 matches
Mail list logo
