[PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for queue configure

[Maxime Coquelin]

With LTS maintainers actually added... sorry.

On 10/23/23 11:05, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/23 14:12, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:47 AM
>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>; Vargas, Hernan
>>> <hernan.vargas at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; gakhil at marvell.com; Rix, Tom
>>> <trix at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for 
>>> queue configure
>>>
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> On 10/19/23 10:41, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>>
>>>> Do we really want to make these kind of changes on to the stable 
>>>> release, it
>>> tends to artificially increase the amount of churn on the stable 
>>> release which
>>> can be counterproductive for such changes which don't add much value 
>>> if any
>>> to user/developper.
>>>> Happy to follow your suggestion but a general feedback is lack of 
>>>> appetite for
>>> very large amount of changes in stable patches which inhibit 
>>> adoption, so
>>> would expect to put things there that we would genuinely flag as a bug.
>>>> Kindly share your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Checking for configuration failure in a test application is quite 
>>> useful in my
>>> opinion, as it can help catching regressions, isn't it?
>>
>> I don’t personally think this (or for other commit on that serie) hits 
>> that bar for being required in stable release. This ends up being 
>> counterproductive having stable release with a huge amount of commits 
>> that are not really required, and it ends up being a reason for people 
>> not to move to stable release.
>> But if you are really convinced, ok to follow your reco.
> 
> Adding LTS maintainers if they want to step in.
> 
> Personally, I think ot should be backported.
> 
> Maxime
> 
>>>
>>> Maxime
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Nic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:43 PM
>>>>> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>>>>> gakhil at marvell.com; Rix, Tom <trix at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>>> <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] test/bbdev: assert failed test for
>>>>> queue configure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/23 20:13, Hernan Vargas wrote:
>>>>>> Stop test if rte_bbdev_queue_configure fails to configure queue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas <hernan.vargas at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c index 65805977aead..cf224dca5d04
>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev.c
>>>>>> @@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ test_bbdev_configure_stop_queue(void)
>>>>>>          * - queue should be started if deferred_start ==
>>>>>>          */
>>>>>>         ts_params->qconf.deferred_start = 0;
>>>>>> -    rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id, &ts_params->qconf);
>>>>>> +    TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(rte_bbdev_queue_configure(dev_id, queue_id,
>>>>> &ts_params->qconf),
>>>>>> +            "Failed test for rte_bbdev_queue_configure");
>>>>>>         rte_bbdev_start(dev_id);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(return_value =
>>>>> rte_bbdev_queue_info_get(dev_id,
>>>>>
>>>>> If should be a fix IMO.
>>>>> With fixes tag added and stable cc'ed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Maxime
>>>>
>>