Hello, While making some updates to our code base for 22.11.1 that were missed in our first pass through, we hit the numa node change[1]. In the process of updating our code, we noticed that a couple functions (rx/tx_queue_setup, maybe more that we aren't using) state they accept `SOCKET_ID_ANY` but the function signature then asks for an unsigned integer while `SOCKET_ID_ANY` is `-1`. Following it through the redirect to the "real" function it also asks for an unsigned integer which is then passed on to one or more functions asking for an integer. As an example using the the i40e driver -- we would call `rte_eth_tx_queue_setup` [2] which ultimately calls `i40e_dev_tx_queue_setup`[3] which finally calls `rte_zmalloc_socket`[4] and `rte_eth_dma_zone_reserve`[5].
I guess what I am looking for is clarification on if this is intentional or if this is additional cleanup that may need to be completed/be desirable so that signs are maintained through the call paths and avoid potentially producing sign-conversion warnings. From the very quick glance I took at the i40e driver, it seems these are just passed through to other functions and no direct use/manipulation occurs (at least in the mentioned functions). 1) https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20221004145850.32331-1-olivier.m...@6wind.com/ 2) https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html#a796c2f20778984c6f41b271e36bae50e 3) https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/main/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c#L1949 4) https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__malloc_8h.html#a7e9f76b7e0b0921a617c6ab8b28f53b3 5) https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/1094dd940ec0cc4e3ce2c5cd94807350855a17f9/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h#L1566
