On 2015/02/18 21:23, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:58:06PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >> 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 >> >> > Why the new ethdev internal file?
I guess some libraries that include "rte_ethdev.h". To compile these libraries, I thought such a header was needed. But, it seems it's not the time to change type of port_id. I appreciate for your checking. Tetsuya
