2015-02-18 15:10, Tetsuya Mukawa: > On 2015/02/18 10:54, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > > On 2015/02/18 9:31, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2015-02-17 15:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > >>> On 2015/02/17 9:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> 2015-02-16 13:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > >>>> Is uint8_t sill a good size for hotpluggable virtual device ids? > >>> I am not sure it's enough, but uint8_t is widely used in "rte_ethdev.c" > >>> as port id. > >>> If someone reports it doesn't enough, I guess it will be the time to > >>> write a patch to change all uint_8 in one patch. > >> It's a big ABI breakage. So if we feel it's going to be required, > >> it's better to do it now in 2.0 release I think. > >> > >> Any opinion? > >> > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I agree with it. > > I will add an one more patch to change uint8_t to uint16_t. > > > > Thanks, > > Tetsuya > > > > Hi Thomas, > > Could I make sure. > After changing uint8_t to uint16_t in "rte_ethdev.[ch]", must I also > need to change other applications and libraries that call ethdev APIs? > If so, I would not finish it by 23rd. > > I've counted how many lines call ethdev APIs that are related to port_id. > Could you please check an attached file? > It's over 1200 lines. Probably to fix one of caller, I will need to > check how port_id is used, and fix more related lines. So probably > thousands lines may need to be fixed. > > When is deadline for fixing this changing? > Also, if you have a good idea to fix it easier, could you please let me > know?
It was an open question. If everybody is fine with 255 ports maximum, let's keep it as is.
