Wouldn't platforms that implement virtual packet pools also implement virtual allocation limits? Otherwise how would you prevent one logical pool from consuming the entire physical pool? In this case it would seem the check would still be valid since the pool_ids are different independent of how the pools are implemented.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Jerin Jacob <[email protected] > wrote: > If a platform is limited to one HW packet pool then odp implementation > can implement the virtual odp packet pools using same the HW packet > pool(if the block size is same) > In this specific test case has created a packet buffer pool on init with > 100 buffers > and later a packet buffer pool of one buffer. So in this specific case > assumption of later pool > have only one buffer is not valid. > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > --- > test/validation/buffer/odp_packet_test.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/test/validation/buffer/odp_packet_test.c > b/test/validation/buffer/odp_packet_test.c > index 7c2b169..86b6a04 100644 > --- a/test/validation/buffer/odp_packet_test.c > +++ b/test/validation/buffer/odp_packet_test.c > @@ -58,8 +58,6 @@ static void packet_alloc_free(void) > packet = odp_packet_alloc(pool, packet_len); > CU_ASSERT_FATAL(packet != ODP_PACKET_INVALID); > CU_ASSERT(odp_packet_len(packet) == packet_len); > - /** @todo: is it correct to assume the pool had only one buffer? */ > - CU_ASSERT_FATAL(odp_packet_alloc(pool, packet_len) == > ODP_PACKET_INVALID) > > odp_packet_free(packet); > > -- > 1.9.3 > > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
