[PATCH 1/4] test: update alarm test

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:17:43 +0100
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 12:07:12PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > This test should be using the TEST_ASSERT macros, and can be
> > run as part of the fast test suite now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > ---
> >  app/test/test_alarm.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_alarm.c b/app/test/test_alarm.c
> > index 70e97a3109..4ba8aa1af2 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_alarm.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_alarm.c
> > @@ -10,7 +10,8 @@
> >  
> >  #include "test.h"
> >  
> > -#ifndef RTE_EXEC_ENV_WINDOWS
> > +#define US_PER_SEC 1000000
> > +
> >  static volatile int flag;
> >  
> >  static void
> > @@ -19,46 +20,32 @@ test_alarm_callback(void *cb_arg)
> >  	flag = 1;
> >  	printf("Callback setting flag - OK. [cb_arg = %p]\n", cb_arg);
> >  }
> > -#endif
> >  
> >  static int
> >  test_alarm(void)
> >  {
> > -#ifdef RTE_EXEC_ENV_FREEBSD
> > -	printf("The alarm API is not supported on FreeBSD\n");
> > -	return 0;
> > -#endif
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(0, test_alarm_callback, NULL);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_FAIL(ret, "should not be succeed with 0 us value");
> > +
> > +	ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(UINT64_MAX - 1, test_alarm_callback, NULL);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_FAIL(ret, "should not be succeed with (UINT64_MAX-1) us value");
> > +
> > +	ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(10, NULL, NULL);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_FAIL(ret, "should not succeed with null callback parameter");
> >    
> 
> +1 to use of TEST_ASSERT_FAIL, the test is a lot cleaner now.
> However, I think we still need the #ifdefs in it if some of it doesn't work
> on Windows/BSD.
> 
> /Bruce

It looks like alarm API's exist on Windows (see lib/eal/windows/eal_alarm.c)
therefore should be tested but aren't being now.