> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:10 AM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 04/13] ethdev: support of multiple sizes of > redirection table > > 2014-10-28 00:33, Zhang, Helin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2014-09-25 16:40, Helin Zhang: > > > > /* Definitions used for redirection table entry size */ > > > > -#define ETH_RSS_RETA_NUM_ENTRIES 128 > > > > -#define ETH_RSS_RETA_MAX_QUEUE 16 > > > > +#define ETH_RSS_RETA_SIZE_64 64 > > > > +#define ETH_RSS_RETA_SIZE_128 128 > > > > +#define ETH_RSS_RETA_SIZE_512 512 > > > > + > > > > +#define RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64 (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(uint64_t)) > > > > > > Are these constants really needed? > > > > These constants were defined for the third input parameter of > > rte_eth_dev_rss_reta_update() and rte_eth_dev_rss_reta_query(). End users > need > > to give the correct reta size listed as above, as other values is not > > valid. So it > would be > > better to list the valid reta sizes in macros here. > If only limited range of values are allowed, would an enum work better than a set of macros?
> OK, so you should explain that only these values are allowed. > In general, it's something we explain in the comment of the function. > > By the way, why only these values are allowed?
