On 02/06/17 17:40, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maxim >> Uvarov >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:34 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 05/10] validation: packet: print reason for >> suite init failure >> >> On 02/06/17 15:37, Petri Savolainen wrote: >>> Knowing the reason for suite init function failure helps in >>> debugging. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c | 23 >> ++++++++++++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c >> b/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c >>> index fa5206f..e3d28f6 100644 >>> --- a/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c >>> +++ b/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c >>> @@ -110,8 +110,10 @@ int packet_suite_init(void) >>> uint8_t data = 0; >>> uint32_t i; >>> >>> - if (odp_pool_capability(&capa) < 0) >>> + if (odp_pool_capability(&capa) < 0) { >>> + printf("pool_capability failed\n"); >>> return -1; >>> + } >> >> >> it's it better to return -1, -2, -3 and put debug print in upper >> function? Here: >> >> >> /* execute its init function */ >> if (sinfo->pInitFunc) { >> ret = sinfo->pInitFunc(); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> } >> >> or it can be CU_FAIL(msg) which already writes line number. >> >> >> Maxim. > > This is CUnit init time function, which cannot handle CU_xxx calls. At least, > other validation init calls used printf directly. I think "pool_capability > failed" is easier to (grep and) find than -2. > > -Petri >
yes, init function does not support CU calls, forgot about that. Yes, grep should be more easy. Ok, with that patch. Maxim.
