On 2015/02/18 19:03, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57:25AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 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. >> > I think we are probably ok for now (and forseeable future) with 255 max. > > However, if we did change it, I agree that in 2.0 is a very good time to do > so. > Since we are expanding the field, rather than shrinking it, I don't see why we > can't just make the change at the ethdev level (and in libs API) in 2.0 and > then in > later releases (e.g. 2.1) update the apps and examples to match. That way the > ABI stays the same from 2.0 onwards, and we don't have a huge amount of churn > changing it everywhere late in the 2.0 release cycle.
Hi Bruce, Could you please check my RFC patch I will send soon? I wrote the patch like below. 1. Copy header file like below. $ cp lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_internal.h 2. Change "rte_ethdev.c" to include "rte_ethdev_internal.h" 3. Change type of port id in "rte_ethdev.c" and "rte_ethdev_internal.h". If the patch is OK, I wll send it with hotplug patches. Thanks, Tetsuya > /Bruce
