From: Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 2:09 AM
> To: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4]
> examples/multi_process/client_server_mp: check port validity
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:03:22 +0000
> Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The DPDK has lots of hard coded assumptions of all ports fitting in 64
> > > bits.
> > > Examples include testpmd/parameters.c etc.
> >
> > Yes, I understand, but the user should know not to change the default
> > value of RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS, at least it should be documented.
> >
> > > The original concept of a small set of assigned values for portid is
> > > not going to scale. It really should have been more like ifindex;
> > > something that is not used by common API's much larger range; and
> assigned purely sequentially.
> > >
> > > The API's should all be using names, but the DPDK port naming is
> > > also a mess...
> >
> > Port ID is OK, user can run port info, then to find the wanted port ID and
> configure it by port id list\bitmap.
> >
>
>
> The examples are toy programs. If user changes RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS it will
> break lots of other places. Why put more checks in the examples. Sorry, it
> really would not help to pretend that fixing the example is going to help
> this.
Agree that it is not needed to fix all the places now.
It is better just to update the example documentation that RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS
must not be changed when running this application.
I will ack your series(v7) , Consider to update the doc if you want to be
completely perfect here.
