On 13 Jul 2021, at 11:01, Amber, Kumar wrote:
> Hi Eelco, > > Pls ignore the comments on check-patch error for python query I have fixed > all of them will be there in v11. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Amber, Kumar >> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:10 PM >> To: 'Eelco Chaudron' <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Van >> Haaren, Harry <[email protected]>; Ferriter, Cian >> <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [v9 07/12] test/sytem-dpdk: Add unit test for mfex autovalidator >> >> Hi Eelco, >> >> Thanks I didn’t knew about his file . >> I will fix them >> <Snip> >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/system-dpdk.at b/tests/system-dpdk.at index >>>> 802895488..55fd7baa3 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/system-dpdk.at >>>> +++ b/tests/system-dpdk.at >>>> @@ -232,3 +232,52 @@ OVS_VSWITCHD_STOP(["\@does not exist. The >> Open >>> vSwitch kernel module is probably >>>> \@EAL: No free hugepages reported in hugepages-1048576kB@d"]) >>>> AT_CLEANUP dnl >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ------ >>>> + >>>> +dnl >>>> +------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> +------- >>>> +dnl Add standard DPDK PHY port >>>> +AT_SETUP([OVS-DPDK - MFEX Autovalidator]) >>> >>> What happened to this conversation? >>> >>> “”” >>>> I think we should also skip these tests if we do not have a machine >>>> that has AVX512. Just to make sure we do not generate an OK where we >>>> are not even testing the AVX512 functions. >>>> >>>> Actually we should not what if someone wants to write a new mfex >>>> version without AVX but just SIMD or some other way than we are >>>> probably blocking the testing >>> >>> Good catch! I think we should run the test if other implementations >>> are available, else skip (except for auto, scalar, and study as they >>> are always available). >>> “”” >> >> Do we need it with the new patch anyway auto-validator will not run if there >> is >> no other implementations And adding the skip is complicated and nasty way I >> can look at it at a cleaner way maybe later but currently I don’t feel its >> necessary >> thoughts? The problem is that it will return a test OK and we need it to be marked as skipped. Guess the check can be as simple as “ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/miniflow-parser-get | sed 1,4d | grep -v "not available”” or something similar depending on the final output of the get command. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
