On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:41:38AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:30:05AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 06:27:24PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > For telemetry data, rather than having unsigned 64-bit values and signed
> > > 32-bit values, we want to just have unsigned and signed values, each
> > > stored with the max bit-width i.e. 64-bits. To that end, we rename the
> > > U64 enum entry to "UINT" to have a more generic name
> > >
> > > For backward API-level compatibility, we can use a macro to alias the
> > > old name to the new.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/lib/telemetry/telemetry_data.c
> > > b/lib/telemetry/telemetry_data.c
> > > index 34366ecee3..3c996484ec 100644
> > > --- a/lib/telemetry/telemetry_data.c
> > > +++ b/lib/telemetry/telemetry_data.c
> > > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ rte_tel_data_start_array(struct rte_tel_data *d, enum
> > > rte_tel_value_type type)
> > > enum tel_container_types array_types[] = {
> > > RTE_TEL_ARRAY_STRING, /* RTE_TEL_STRING_VAL = 0 */
> > > RTE_TEL_ARRAY_INT, /* RTE_TEL_INT_VAL = 1 */
> > > - RTE_TEL_ARRAY_U64, /* RTE_TEL_u64_VAL = 2 */
> > > + RTE_TEL_ARRAY_U64, /* RTE_TEL_UINT_VAL = 2 */
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > is this supposed to be RTE_TEL_UINT_VAL?
> >
> No, only the comment is to be changed in this line. The ARRAY_ values are
> different and are internal only. Those are renamed by a later patch in the
> series.
yep, sorry about that i noticed it when i looked at later patches.
>
> /Bruce
