Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] test/compress: add multi xform test
From: Daly, Lee <hidden>
Date: 2018-05-02 13:49:14
Hi Pablo, Feedback for a small change below.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
-----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pablo de Lara Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:15 PM To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Trahe, Fiona <redacted>; shally.verma@cavium.com; ahmed.mansour@nxp.com; Ashish.Gupta@cavium.com; De Lara Guarch, Pablo [off-list ref] Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/5] test/compress: add multi xform test Add test that checks if multiple xforms can be handled on a single enqueue call. Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <redacted> --- test/test/test_compressdev.c | 257 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 191 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)diff --git a/test/test/test_compressdev.c b/test/test/test_compressdev.c index bb026d74f..0253d12ea 100644 --- a/test/test/test_compressdev.c +++ b/test/test/test_compressdev.c@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ #define COMPRESS_BUF_SIZE_RATIO 1.3 #define NUM_MBUFS 16 #define NUM_OPS 16 -#define NUM_MAX_XFORMS 1 +#define NUM_MAX_XFORMS 16 #define NUM_MAX_INFLIGHT_OPS 128 #define CACHE_SIZE 0@@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ struct priv_op_data { struct comp_testsuite_params { struct rte_mempool *mbuf_pool; struct rte_mempool *op_pool; - struct rte_comp_xform def_comp_xform; - struct rte_comp_xform def_decomp_xform; + struct rte_comp_xform *def_comp_xform; + struct rte_comp_xform *def_decomp_xform; }; static struct comp_testsuite_params testsuite_params = { 0 }; @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ testsuite_teardown(void) rte_mempool_free(ts_params->mbuf_pool); rte_mempool_free(ts_params->op_pool); + rte_free(ts_params->def_comp_xform); + rte_free(ts_params->def_decomp_xform); } static int@@ -108,19 +110,24 @@ testsuite_setup(void) goto exit; } + ts_params->def_comp_xform = + rte_malloc(NULL, sizeof(struct rte_comp_xform), 0); + ts_params->def_decomp_xform = + rte_malloc(NULL, sizeof(struct rte_comp_xform), 0); +
Perhaps add a check to ensure this memory has been successfully allocated, as you did you with the mempool malloc above this, in PATCH 1/5. <...>