> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tetsuya Mukawa > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:58 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Neil Horman > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 03/14] eal/pci, ethdev: Remove assumption > that port will not be > detached > > 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 > Hi Tetsuya,
After this change there will be two header files with a lot of the same information. lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_internal.h I don't think this is a good idea for maintenance in the future. If 255 is ok for the foreseeable future, why change it now. Regards, Bernard.
