On 2015/02/18 21:33, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: > >> -----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.
Hi Bernard, I appreciate for your checking. Agree, it will not be good to have almost same headers. Thanks, Tetsuya > Regards, > > Bernard. > >
