From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: reduce test duration for efd autotest
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:33:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3AEA2BF9852C6F48A459DA490692831F2A3B990E@irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1537971540-31443-1-git-send-email-jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Marohn, Byron" <byron.marohn@intel.com>, "De Lara Guarch, Pablo"
 <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
To: "Parthasarathy, JananeeX M" <jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283234F91
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:33:27 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1537971540-31443-1-git-send-email-jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parthasarathy, JananeeX M
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 3:19 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
>=20
>  	struct rte_efd_table *handle =3D NULL;
>  	uint32_t num_rules_in =3D TABLE_SIZE;
> -	uint8_t simple_key[EFD_TEST_KEY_LEN];

You need to remove EFD_TEST_KEY_LEN macro from the code now, as it is not i=
s not used now.

Also seems like they want to use the key of length 8 bytes as per this test=
.
But after your changes we are going to have one byte key , so is the test b=
ehaving same before and after this key change?
=20

> +		val =3D mrand48() & VALUE_BITMASK;

Can we use rte_rand() here instead of mrand48()?=20
What was the reason for using mrand8()?

Thanks,
Reshma