[PATCH 3/4] argparse: fix argument flags operate as uint32 type

[fengchengwen]

Hi David,

On 2024/3/7 1:34, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:16 PM Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen at huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> The struct rte_argparse_arg's flags was 64bit type, uint64_t should be
>> used instead of uint32_t where the operation happened.
> 
> Something is strange.
> An enum in C is represented as an int.
> 
> Plus, this enum type is not used anywhere:
> lib/argparse/rte_argparse.h:enum rte_argparse_flag {
> lib/argparse/rte_argparse.h:    /** @see rte_argparse_flag */
> 
> I understand the flags are a bitmask.
> So please remove this enum and define macros instead.

Thanks for point it out, already send v2.

> 
> 
>>
>> Also, the flags' bit16 was also unused, so don't test bit16 in testcase
>> test_argparse_invalid_arg_flags.
>>
>> Fixes: 6c5c6571601c ("argparse: verify argument config")
>> Fixes: 31ed9f9f43bb ("argparse: parse parameters")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen at huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  app/test/test_argparse.c    | 16 ++++++++--------
>>  lib/argparse/rte_argparse.c |  4 ++--
>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_argparse.c b/app/test/test_argparse.c
>> index c98bcee56d..708a575e16 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_argparse.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_argparse.c
>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ test_argparse_invalid_arg_help(void)
>>  static int
>>  test_argparse_invalid_has_val(void)
>>  {
>> -       uint32_t set_mask[] = { 0,
>> +       uint64_t set_mask[] = { 0,
>>                                 RTE_ARGPARSE_ARG_NO_VALUE,
>>                                 RTE_ARGPARSE_ARG_OPTIONAL_VALUE
>>                               };
>> @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ test_argparse_invalid_has_val(void)
>>         int ret;
>>
>>         obj = test_argparse_init_obj();
>> -       obj->args[0].flags &= ~0x3u;
>> +       obj->args[0].flags &= ~0x3ull;
> 
> If flags is a uint64_t, use RTE_BIT64().
> 
> 
> I don't know the argparse API, but why do we need this hardcoded (and
> hard to understand) ~3 value?

The lowest two bits was a represent whether has value.

> Can it be expressed with the flags defined in the API?

Its not part of API, I defined a macro in test_argparse.c to express its meaning in v2.

> 
> 
>>         ret = rte_argparse_parse(obj, default_argc, default_argv);
>>         TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Argparse parse expect failed!");
>>
>> @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ test_argparse_invalid_has_val(void)
>>                 obj = test_argparse_init_obj();
>>                 obj->args[0].name_long = "abc";
>>                 obj->args[0].name_short = NULL;
>> -               obj->args[0].flags &= ~0x3u;
>> +               obj->args[0].flags &= ~0x3ull;
>>                 obj->args[0].flags |= set_mask[index];
>>                 ret = rte_argparse_parse(obj, default_argc, default_argv);
>>                 TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Argparse parse expect failed!");
>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ test_argparse_invalid_arg_flags(void)
>>         int ret;
>>
>>         obj = test_argparse_init_obj();
>> -       obj->args[0].flags |= ~0x107FFu;
>> +       obj->args[0].flags |= ~0x7FFull;
> 
> Same comments as above.

Done in v2, defined macros in test_argpase.c and express with multi-marco's or value.

Thanks

> 
>