Hi Maxime, > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 12:09 PM > To: Chautru, Nicolas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Vargas, Hernan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] test/bbdev: fix build issue with optional build > flag > > Hi Nicolas, > > On 11/24/22 17:06, Nicolas Chautru wrote: > > Missing implementation for offload test with FFT. > > Only build when the optional build flag RTE_BBDEV_OFFLOAD_COST is set. > > > > Fixes: 0acdb9866756 ("test/bbdev: add FFT operations cases") > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <[email protected]> > > --- > > app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 82 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > > b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > > index 1859952901..b2e536b5e3 100644 > > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c > > @@ -4940,6 +4940,88 @@ get_bbdev_queue_stats(uint16_t dev_id, > uint16_t queue_id, > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int > > +offload_latency_test_fft(struct rte_mempool *mempool, struct > test_buffers *bufs, > > + struct rte_bbdev_fft_op *ref_op, uint16_t dev_id, > > + uint16_t queue_id, const uint16_t num_to_process, > > + uint16_t burst_sz, struct test_time_stats *time_st) { > > + int i, dequeued, ret; > > + struct rte_bbdev_fft_op *ops_enq[MAX_BURST], > *ops_deq[MAX_BURST]; > > + uint64_t enq_start_time, deq_start_time; > > + uint64_t enq_sw_last_time, deq_last_time; > > + struct rte_bbdev_stats stats; > > + > > + for (i = 0, dequeued = 0; dequeued < num_to_process; ++i) { > > + uint16_t enq = 0, deq = 0; > > + > > + if (unlikely(num_to_process - dequeued < burst_sz)) > > + burst_sz = num_to_process - dequeued; > > + > > + rte_bbdev_fft_op_alloc_bulk(mempool, ops_enq, burst_sz); > > It might be safer to check for error.
We don’t check for error on the _op_alloc_bulk() for any of the other offload test functions. This could be changed through an independent patchset. Are you okay to apply as is on the next-baseband subtree? Or you prefer a v2 with an additional commit now for all these functions? Thanks Nic > > Given how late we are in the release, and also because it is in the test > application, I'm fine if the fix is done in next release. > > Other than that, it looks good to me: > Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]> > > Thanks, > Maxime
