On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 11:33 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> In preparation for changing the path grouping code, add some unit
> tests
> to verify that it works correctly. The only test that currently fails
> (and so it being skipped) is using MULTIBUS when mp->paths is empty.
> All
> the other path grouping policies free mp->paths, even if it is empty.
> one_group() should as well. This will be fixed when the path grouping
> code is updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/Makefile | 2 +-
> tests/pgpolicy.c | 708
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 709 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 tests/pgpolicy.c
>
> +
> +static void test_group_by_node_name_3_groups4(void **state)
> +{
> + char *node_name[] = {"a","b","c","a"};
> + int prio[] = {3,1,3,1};
> + int group0[] = {2};
> + int group1[] = {0,3};
> + int group2[] = {1};
> + int *groups[] = {group0, group1, group2};
> + int group_size[] = {1,2,1};
> +
> + set_priority(p4, prio, 4);
> + set_tgt_node_name(p4, node_name, 4);
> + assert_int_equal(group_by_node_name(&mp4), 0);
> + verify_pathgroups(&mp4, p4, groups, group_size, 3);
> +}
Nothing wrong with your code, but this is one example where I would say
our prio group ordering is counter-intuitive. Does it really make sense
to order the group of two paths with prio {3, 1} *after* the group with
just one prio 3 path?
Regards,
Martin
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
