Call for objections to removing the macro ? Sounds reasonable to me, and I dont think we need to block this going in, cleaning up is a seperate issue so I will make a bug for it
On 6 February 2017 at 10:11, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Maxim Uvarov [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 5:05 PM >> To: Mike Holmes <[email protected]> >> Cc: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolainen@nokia-bell- >> labs.com>; lng-odp <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 05/10] validation: packet: print reason for >> suite init failure >> >> On 02/06/17 18:01, Mike Holmes wrote: >> > On 6 February 2017 at 09:55, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 02/06/17 17:49, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Mike >> >>>> Holmes >> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:41 PM >> >>>> To: Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> >> >>>> Cc: lng-odp <[email protected]> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 05/10] validation: packet: print reason >> for >> >>>> suite init failure >> >>>> >> >>>> On 6 February 2017 at 09:34, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>> 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"); >> >>>> >> >>>> We have defined LOG_DBG in test_debug.h, shoudl we be using that ? >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> All other xxx_suite_init() just use printf() or don't print at all. >> This is just applying the current practice. >> >>> >> >>> -Petri >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> LOG_ for implementation only, not for tests. >> > >> > That is not true currently, but happy if we delete the current cases >> > or document why we pick either method. >> > >> > common_plat/validation/api/system/system.c: >> > LOG_DBG("\nBAD VERSION=%s\n", version_string); >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: LOG_DBG("Timer handle: >> > %" PRIu64 "\n", odp_timer_to_u64(tim)); >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: LOG_DBG("Timeout >> > handle: %" PRIu64 "\n", odp_timeout_to_u64(tmo)); >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: >> > LOG_DBG("Wrong tick: expected %" PRIu64 >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: >> > LOG_DBG("Too late tick: %" PRIu64 >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: >> > LOG_DBG("Failed to allocate timeout (%" PRIu32 "/%d)\n", >> > common_plat/validation/api/timer/timer.c: >> > LOG_DBG("Failed to allocate timer >> > .... >> > >> > >> > I think we should be consistent, looks like there are two standards, >> > some with printf >> >> >> unbelievable LOG_ are defined in test/test_debug.h >> In that case we should use them in tests. >> >> Maxim. > > Found over 200 hits of printf() in current validation test .c files. May be > someone can take an action to clean out all of those. This patch just follows > the current practice of xxx_suite_init() functions. > > -Petri > -- Mike Holmes Program Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs "Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows"
