[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved to dpdk perf testsuite

[Wang, Yipeng1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole at redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 7:41 AM
> To: agupta3 at marvell.com
> Cc: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang at intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
> <sameh.gobriel at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved to
> dpdk perf testsuite
> 
> <agupta3 at marvell.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Amit Gupta <agupta3 at marvell.com>
> >
> > hash_readwrite_lf test always getting TIMEOUT as required time to
> > finish this test was much longer compare to time required for fast
> > tests(10s). Hence, the test is being renamed moved to perf test
> > category for its execution to complete.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Gupta <agupta3 at marvell.com>
> > ---
> 
> Okay.  I'll note that we pass the '-t 3' flag, so it is actually timing out with 30s
> instead of the default 10.  We do this because occasionally the lpm6 and table
> tests would also exceed the 10s timeout in the travis environment.  I agree,
> it's better to pull the perf part of tests out.
> 
> I think there isn't any additional functional test in this readwrite - is that so?
> If it is, then we need to also prioritize adding back in some of the functional
> testing.  Maybe I misread the lf_autotest, though.
> 
[Wang, Yipeng] 
Yes that is my concern too, if we just move all the lock-free test into perf test then we miss
the functional test.
Would any of you like to consider adding a small functional test into the readwrite or readwrite_lf_functional?
That would be great :)